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]

my assertion is that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person best explains the available historical evidence -- all of it -- in the light of our background knowledge, and it exceeds other competing hypotheses sufficiently that we can say that Jesus most likely existed.

Why?

[1DoubtingThomas]

historia, then when you said "Almost Certain" that Jesus was a real character from antiquity, then this is NOT AN ABSOLUTE,

Correct, the historical method does not provide the means necessary to reach absolute conclusions. That is one of the inherent limits of the discipline of history.

Then pseudo-christians worship a "Maybe God Concept" which is embarrassing for them to say the least, priceless buffoonery on their part!

which is BLASPHEME to a pseudo-christian like YOU!!!

I'm not into playing these kind of silly games. You'll have to take this schtick elsewhere.

WRONG BIBLE FOOL!. The biblical term BLASPHEME is most certainly appropriate in a pseudo-christian Religion Discussion Forum!!! ........ H-E-L-L-O?! .... Get it? .... Huh? .... Anybody home today, obviously NOT!



Barring that your "non sequitur" relative to the God Mithras fell flat upon its proverbial face, you failed to discuss said God Mithras that existed before Jesus, and was still existing at the time of the serial killer Jesus. Where Mithras has unnerving similarities to Jesus as God that alludes to the fact that Jesus was a copycat of Mithras ...... hmmmmmmm...... To SCARED to discuss this narrative, let alone Horus and other Gods that preexisted before Jesus that have more similarities of the brutal serial killer Jesus as God, where seemingly, Jesus was a COPYCAT God?



.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to POI in post #1]



JESUS IS A TOTAL MYTH AS EASILY SHOWN ONCE AGAIN BELOW!


"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." (John 1:18)

Many in Jesus' time period, saw God, because Jesus is God! Therefore, John in the verse above LIED, or he was just to dumbfounded to be a Bible author!!!



1. PETER SAYS JESUS IS GOD: Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours. (2 Peter 1:1)


2. JOHN SAYS THAT JESUS IS GOD: "The woman said, I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us. Then Jesus declared, I, the one speaking to you"I am he. (John 4:25-26)


3. JESUS ANSWERED: "Don"t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? (John 14:9)


Now, the pseudo-christian can either say that the Bible authors shown in the Biblical passages above LIED about Jesus being God, or that Jesus as God LIED since He inspired the entire bible writings to begin with as biblically shown below:

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, THE WORD OF GOD. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)


What a comical situation that pseudo-christians have to go through as described above in worshipping their brutal serial killer Jesus as God that murdered innocent INFANTS and Children as drastically shown in 1 Samuel 5:2-3!




.

[historia]

my assertion is that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person best explains the available historical evidence -- all of it -- in the light of our background knowledge, and it exceeds other competing hypotheses sufficiently that we can say that Jesus most likely existed.

Why?

I can only begin to answer that question in the short space and time we have here.

First, I would start with our background knowledge: Religious movements are most often started by a charismatic individual, who is then subsequently revered by later adherents of that movement as its founder.

This is particularly the case within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religious communities, as it often takes a prophet, reformer, or some other especially holy or knowledgeable teacher to cause people to leave the established religious community of their day to join a new sect.

The examples of this are, of course, legion: Mormons trace their community back to, and subsequently lionize, Joseph Smith as their founder. Lutherans do the same for Martin Luther. Muslims do the same for Muhammad, etc.

When it comes to Christianity, then, we would, to a large extent, expect to find a charismatic individual who started that movement, who was then subsequently revered by the community as its founder. And, of course, that is precisely what we see in all of the sources, which point to Jesus as the founder.

This all makes perfect sense on the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Any alternative hypothesis, on the other hand, has to appeal to a number of ad hoc suppositions to explain why all the evidence says Jesus was the founder of this movement while also explaining why the actual founder, or founders, was promptly forgotten.

Second, there appear to be a number of fixed elements in the early sources that are somewhat inconvenient to early Christianity, which are best explained by the fact that they are historical.

For example, there was clearly an expectation in Second Temple Judaism that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem. But the gospels all record Jesus coming from Nazareth. This makes sense on the hypothesis that Jesus existed and was known to be from Nazareth. If he didn't actually exist, however, and the early Christians could freely make-up any facts about him they wanted, why not invent a Jesus of Bethlehem?

This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg.

[POI]

[Replying to historia in post #94]

What else? Once you have listed your point(s), I will summarize them and leave them here for debate. Thanks.

[Difflugia]

What else? Once you have listed your point(s), I will summarize them and leave them here for debate. Thanks.

To be fair, it's probably up to us (or me) to list reasons that we disagree with the consensus. "Tell me why you agree with everyone else against my eccentric theology" can be a frustrating position to be in.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

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.

Are there any published scholars who propose the idea that Jesus is a myth? If there is, they are outside of mainstream thought.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

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.

Are there any published scholars who propose the idea that Jesus is a myth?

Yes.

If there is, they are outside of mainstream thought.

Considering your myriad other apologetic positions, I wouldn't think that appeal to popularity would be your go-to fallacy.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Even that very Christian online encyclopedia Wikipedia, believes Jesus existed.

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory."

Law, Stephen (2011). "Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus". Faith and Philosophy. 28 (2): 129. doi:10.5840/faithphil20112821.: "The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus existence beyond reasonable doubt."

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. pp. 256"257

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X p. 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Churchs imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

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.

Are there any published scholars who propose the idea that Jesus is a myth? If there is, they are outside of mainstream thought.

Wow, just imagine if you used this line of reasoning a few thousand years ago, regarding the consensus conclusion shape of the earth. Oh, that's right, even Bible authors thought the world was a flat disk. But now that virtually no one thinks the world is a flat disk anymore, besides the unwavering words of the Bible, and the 'flat earth society', now what?

What evidence(s) suggests Jesus was a real person?