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

[Avoice]

Jesus died. If he lived before he has died. He had his chance to do the work of the messiah. He failed.

[Difflugia]

Maybe you can pick a fight with Difflugia or something? Or maybe someone will address what you just stated? Fingers crossed, as I am very curious as to how all the smarties here fare against one another?.?.?.?

Realworldjack and I have had this and similar conversations a number of times. Each time, our disagreement boils down to our inability to agree on the meanings of the words "fact," "conjecture," and "conclusion."

if you know that the story of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up.

The resurrection story was almost certainly made up.

[POI]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #42]

Cutting to the chase, I gather he has proposed the same argument to you, in that "these followers most certainly could not have made this story up". Which seems to be his major point as to why a Jesus character at least existed. Out of morbid curiosity, what was your response to this assertion, aside from the one you gave above?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #43]


He never gave a reason other than we disagreed over definitions. All he said was "The resurrection story was almost certainly made up" with no facts and evidence. He gave you a link where you can go and read the exchanges between us and there you can see for yourself. The funny thing here is though, you have run out of steam, and you are having to beg others to take up your argument in your stead. I can assure you that he, nor anyone else has a scenario of the facts and evidence we can know in which the story of the resurrection could have possibly been made up. If you do not believe this, all you have to do is to take a look at the post by "bluegreenearth" where they share this link https://www.bartehrman.com/minimal-witn ... ypothesis/.

The author is Paul Ens, who like most all the unbelievers on this site, was a convinced Christian for decades of his life. In this article, Ens certainly does not attempt to suggest the story of the resurrection was made up and the reason for this is the fact that he knows the facts and evidence we have will not allow it. Before he closed the door on Christianity, he claims he was asked this question by a mentor,

The thing we know for certain is that Christianity exists. Can you explain the existence of the church without a resurrection?

Ens immediately goes on to admit this.

Though it took years of investigation and study, it turns out I can.

GOOD GRIEF! It took years of investigation and study to come up with an explanation of how the church exists without a resurrection? I mean, it does not take but a second to think that the story may have been made up. However, he knows, I know, the experts know, and you know this is not possible. If you read the article, you will clearly see that Ens cannot say that his scenario is true, rather he is simply claiming that the scenario is possible, and I am here to tell you that the jury is still out on whether his scenario would even be possible. I can tell you this, if all the 12 steps he gives fell into place the way in which he claims to be possible: if this in fact all fell into place just in order to make the scenario possible, it would be one of the most extraordinary tales the world has ever known.

Allow me to explain to you how this article by Ens is destroying your argument. It is extraordinary that Ens was desperately attempting to come up with an explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would not include a resurrection, and it took "years of investigation and study" in order to come up with a scenario which he cannot in any way insist is true, but rather that it may have been possible, and we have not even determined as of yet that the elaborate scenario he provides would even be a possibility. Now, I am just going to tell you that if you do not believe that his explanation would have to be extraordinary, then you are just not being honest. It took him years of investigation and study, and he still has not eliminated the resurrection.

The above is exactly what I have meant every time I have typed out the words, "when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, they will come to discover there are no easy answers on either side". This article by Ens demonstrates this statement of mine to be true, and it eliminates your argument that a resurrection is impossible, because I can assure you that it does not take years of investigation and study in order to come to the conclusion that a resurrection is impossible, and if that is all it took to eliminate the resurrection then it would not take years of investigation and study.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #39]

Again, where does Moses mention Jesus? Please point me to the verse(s)? I'm still waiting?

By what I know, there is no word "Jesus" in the known Old Testament. And i don't see that as a problem. Things can be told also without a name. However, by what I know, the word "Jesus" comes from the word "Yeshua", which can be found, if you know what the word means my, thy, or his salvation. One example is:

...I will rejoice in Your salvation. (=Yeshua)
Psalms 9:14

[POI]

[Replying to 1213 in post #39]

Again, where does Moses mention Jesus? Please point me to the verse(s)? I'm still waiting?

By what I know, there is no word "Jesus" in the known Old Testament. And i don't see that as a problem. Things can be told also without a name. However, by what I know, the word "Jesus" comes from the word "Yeshua", which can be found, if you know what the word means my, thy, or his salvation. One example is:

...I will rejoice in Your salvation. (=Yeshua)
Psalms 9:14

Then sorry, I cannot accept your reply here. If you believe in prophecy, and the prophecy does not mention Jesus, then it is not clear or accurate.

[Difflugia]

Out of morbid curiosity, what was your response to this assertion, aside from the one you gave above?

I can assure you that he, nor anyone else has a scenario of the facts and evidence we can know in which the story of the resurrection could have possibly been made up.

The "facts and evidence" are no more than the existence of the New Testament. That it was written is fact and that it says what it says is fact. Unfortunately, whether or not any of it is true, isn't among our facts.

There are valid arguments for why we should accept some portions of the New Testament as having a historical basis, but you didn't make those arguments. The arguments that you did make were fallacious in ways that couldn't really be cured, so we never got beyond that point. In the absence of any other evidence, there was really nothing to counter my argument:

• We have five stories of Jesus' resurrection.
• Stories can be, and have been, made up since the earliest people began telling stories.
• Nobody has ever returned from the dead.

Even if you're right and the resurrection happened, your arguments don't support that. Your most cogent argument is the one based on the "minimal facts," but even there, your fact isn't right. Your claim has been that "the scholars tell us we can know the earliest followers truly believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death" [source]. Unfortunately, that claim as it's presented by Habermas is that "encountered Jesus alive after death" is nebulous enough that it can include visions or spiritual manifestations rather than a physical encounter. If a viable explanation for the stories is "visions," then the rest of your argument falls apart. You haven't remedied that. You've simply insisted that, no, it really was physical.

That's the scenario that matches all of the facts you've thus far presented: the early followers imagined Jesus.

[POI]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #47]

Yes, he most certainly fits the mold as a 'minimal facts' believer. In fact, there is a topic about it, here (viewtopic.php?t=40714).

He does also play very (fast, broad, and loose) with the terms 'facts and evidence.' Thank you for the recap. I'm feeling DeJa'Vu, in reading this... As I too have gone around the same merry-go-round regarding these same given points with RealJack.

Further, this was a point I tried to clarify in the 'Empty Tomb!" thread. Meaning, the early writers believed in a physical bodily resurrection. Which is why the tomb HAD to be discovered empty, as well as a fabricated story about Doubting Thomas. Paul only claims to have had a vision, so he really does not count, under this rubric. But regardless, "visions" are a dime a dozen.

None of these claimed witnesses were vetted or deposed, which is why apologists will argue they were martyred, as no one dies for a lie. Since they were never deposed, we have no idea who saw what, if even at all? All we know is that "visions" are common. But we dismiss them, especially when they are referring to the claim(s) of the later undead. Just not when it happens to come from the one book one was exposed to very early in life, and it is also the book which merits priority over all other 'holy books', geographically, for that individual. But, I digress....

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #39]

Again, where does Moses mention Jesus? Please point me to the verse(s)? I'm still waiting?

By what I know, there is no word "Jesus" in the known Old Testament. And i don't see that as a problem. Things can be told also without a name. However, by what I know, the word "Jesus" comes from the word "Yeshua", which can be found, if you know what the word means my, thy, or his salvation. One example is:

...I will rejoice in Your salvation. (=Yeshua)
Psalms 9:14

Then sorry, I cannot accept your reply here. If you believe in prophecy, and the prophecy does not mention Jesus, then it is not clear or accurate.

I understand it is not clear to you. I didn't expect anything to be clear to you. If things happen as told in a prophesy, it is for me good enough, even if there is not everything mentioned.

[POI]

I understand it is not clear to you. I didn't expect anything to be clear to you. If things happen as told in a prophesy, it is for me good enough, even if there is not everything mentioned.

No 1213. You missed my point. You reject replies because they do not possess exact words. I'm giving you a sample of your own medicine. How does it taste?

This is you below, in a nutshell, in many exchanges:

The exact word fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone demands a precise, specific definition of a word or phrase, not to understand the meaning, but to try and invalidate the other person's argument. It's a tactic used to derail a discussion by making it seem like the other person is unable to define terms, even if the meaning is clear from context. Essentially, it's a way to trap someone in a semantic debate rather than engage with the actual content of their argument.