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

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #59]

1) I merely "conceded" to your claim, as it is not necessary to challenge.

This is false, and you know it to be false. You know, I know, the scholars know, and everyone else knows it is impossible that the story of the resurrection was made up, and if it were not impossible you would attempt to make the argument, and that is not going to happen, and the reason it is not going to happen is because it is an impossible argument to win. So then, it is false that you are simply conceding this point for the sake of the argument.

You continue to issue a strawman and I'm not going to explain it, yet again.

It is not a "strawman" and I will demonstrate this to you again. It would be a strawman if I were insisting that you were making the argument. I am not saying this is the argument you are making, rather I am demonstrating that the argument cannot be made, and you are demonstrating this to be the case.

If you are not getting it by now, then you are either trolling me, or I can no longer help you on this point.

Oh, I am getting it, and you understand very well that I am getting it, and I am here to help you understand that the above is not a strawman, because I have never suggested you were making the argument. Rather, I am demonstrating that it is impossible to make the argument.

2) As I've stated in another thread, and in post 48 of this thread, there is a difference between a claimed 'vision' <verses> a claimed physical resurrection.

Your problem here is the fact that I am simply dealing with the facts, while you are off in dream world somewhere. I am not insisting on what kind of experience it was. I am simply demonstrating that all these folks had some sort of experience, and it would have been impossible for these folks to have made it up. You are the one who is insisting that it definitely was not a physical encounter, and you have no way to demonstrate what you are insisting. Can you see the difference? I am dealing with what we can know and demonstrate, while you are off in dream world insisting upon what you cannot demonstrate.

Further, the Gospels are all we have to confirm a Jesus. And the Gospels are not trustworthy. Please pay attention.

You are the one who needs to pay attention, because I have already demonstrated that it is from this same material that we can be certain the story could not have possibly been made up.

So yes, I have not taken/embraced the position of a mythicist, However, I still consider the position. Meaning, I have not ruled this position out. This is why this thread is here.

You are saying in a different way what you have already said by claiming to be agnostic towards whether Jesus is a myth. What I am doing is to demonstrate it is impossible for one to remain agnostic towards Jesus being a myth and this is demonstrated by the fact that we can know the story of the resurrection could not have been made up. It is cognitive dissonance to know that the story of the resurrection of Jesus could not have been made up and then claim to be agnostic toward Jesus being a myth. That math don't add. So then, you can either make the argument that the story of the resurrection was made up (and that ain't gonna happen) or you can then know that it is not possible for Jesus to have been a myth. You see, I have just saved you a whole lot of thought.

Paula Fredriksen acknowledges the disciples' belief in the resurrection, but she doesn't definitively state whether they saw a physical resurrection or a vision.

You see, this is what is called a "strawman", because I have never, ever argued as to what sort of experience it would have been. My only argument is that it is impossible for the reports to have been made up. You are forced to concede this as being fact, and not simply for the sake of the argument. Rather, it is because the argument is impossible to make. I do not go beyond what I can demonstrate. You on the other hand, are indeed insisting that it was not a physical resurrection. Or am I mistaken?

I can go on to tell you that although Fredriksen does in fact say we can know the story was not made up, as a historian she does not insist that it was not a physical resurrection. Can you imagine why? Well, as a historian, she is forced to deal with those things she can demonstrate. As an unbeliever she does not believe the resurrection to be physical, but that is a far cry from being able to demonstrate this to be the case. You are in the same boat in that you do not believe the resurrection was physical, but you insist that it was not, and you cannot demonstrate what it is you are insisting.

You are heading down the road which I have predicted, and it is not because you do not believe the resurrection. Rather, it is because you insist that reason cannot be used to come to a different conclusion than the one you hold to. Because of this, your arguments (or should I say the arguments you have heard from others) is crumbling under the weight of the facts and evidence, and you are now forced to question as to whether we can know anything at all. This is easy to predict, because you are going to have no other options.

As I stated in post 48, since these disciples were not deposed or vetted, we cannot know anything about them.

Again, and again, and again, allow me to tell you what we can know. We can know Jesus lived. We can know that he had a following. We can know that Jesus was crucified. We can know Jesus died. We can know that those who followed him claimed to have witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and we can know they did not make the story up. We can know all the above, and more, without the disciples being "deposed or vetted". Again, another argument which is not your own, and I know it is not your own because I have heard the same argument with the same exact wording from others, and it has been debunked.

Also, the physical resurrection claims comes from the Gospels, and we both admit the Gospels are widely untrustworthy.

You continue to say the same things over, and over, which forces me to repeat what I have already demonstrated and that is the fact that from this same material we can know all I listed above.

We know Paul had a vision

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! How can you know this? The only way you can know this is by reading the material you insist is untrustworthy. I'm just telling you! You cannot make this stuff up!

Okay, what else you got?

I am not thinking I need much else. I will get to the rest later, unless you respond to this first and then we will take it from there.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #61]

This is why I designated a thread to your nonsense --> (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42567&start=20). See posts 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34, and 39. I no longer need to rinse/repeat, yet again.

Now, I'll watch as there may be some exchanges between planted flagged positions, between "he existed' <vs> 'he didn't". And after I see enough argument(s), I may or may not move my own needle in one direction or another, as I'm not really sure if an actual Jesus even existed or not anymore?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #62]

Now, I'll watch as there may be some exchanges between planted flagged positions, between "he existed' <vs> 'he didn't". And after I see enough argument(s), I may or may not move my own needle in one direction or another, as I'm not really sure if an actual Jesus even existed or not anymore?

I am afraid you do not have that luxury. Because you see, I have demonstrated that it is impossible for you to be agnostic toward Jesus being a myth, and I have done this by demonstrating that the reports of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead could not have possibly been made up. You see, you cannot know that it is impossible for the reports of the resurrection of Jesus to have been made-up in that mind of yours (and we all know that you know this by now) and then in that same mind question as to whether Jesus may have been a myth. As I said, you know that math don't add. You also know in that mind of yours, that this would be to demonstrate cognitive dissonance, and you rail against cognitive dissonance.

Let us go through this again, so you can look it square in the eyes. You know for a fact that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus were not made up. We all know you know this, because if you could make the argument, you certainly would. But you can't, so you ain't. If you know the reports of the resurrection of Jesus was not made up, then your mind knows for certain that Jesus could not have possibly been a myth.

I will say again, it was easy to predict that folks who make the arguments you are making are eventually and inevitably going to have to question if we can know anything at all. The problem you have now is, you have painted yourself into a corner with no way out and appealing to the "we can't know much of anything" argument can't even save you now, because it is a fact that you know that the reports of the resurrection was not made up, which means you know for certain that Jesus was not a myth.

I know you would like to go get a bowl of popcorn and sit back and relax, but as I said you do not have that luxury at this point. Because you see, I have "planted a flag" and the flag I have planted in the ground says, you cannot possibly be agnostic toward the existence of Jesus. So then, you need to put that popcorn away and get to explaining how you can know beyond doubt that the reports of the resurrection of Jesus were not made up, and also in that same mind claim to be agnostic concerning the existence of Jesus, and I will go get some popcorn as I wait.

[Difflugia]

I experience cognitive dissonance all the time at this site.

It is not that you simply experience it,

Then you don't know what "cognitive dissonance" means.

it is a fact that you cannot deny that the followers of Jesus just days later were reporting a resurrection

That's not a fact. We don't know any part of that. The first mention of any resurrection that we have is by Paul, decades after the crucifixion. It also depends greatly on what you mean by "reporting." The two things that Paul said about the resurrection are, first, that it was according to the scriptures and, second, that it involves some sort of spiritual body rather than a natural body (1 Cor. 15:44). The next "report" is at least a decade later and is just an imagined conversation with an angel with an empty tomb, not even a vision.

and we can know they did not make the story up.

This was wrong when you said it before and it's wrong now.

Next, we can know these early followers had some sort of encounter with the risen Jesus. What we cannot know is exactly what sort of encounter it was.

Habermas says that the majority of scholars agree to this, anyway.

You are agreeing (because you have to)

I'm agreeing because, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to pretend that Habermas is reliable.

that the story of the resurrection was not made up,

I'm accepting that they encountered the risen Jesus in some way, not that the stories they told later to make sense of those encounters weren't made up. We know that A. A. Milne's son, Christopher, had a stuffed bear named Winnie-the-Pooh. The stories that Milne wrote about Winnie-the-Pooh talking were made-up.

There is so much to say here that I am not sure I can get it all in. Even if Mark did such a thing, (which we cannot know) this would not take away from the fact that Mark, along with all the others had some sort of encounter with the risen Jesus.

That's right. It also wouldn't tell us if Mark's empty tomb story matched his encounter, whatever that was. Or that it matched some disciple's (Peter's?) actual experience. Remember that even Christian tradition has Mark recounting hearsay.

What we cannot insist upon, is what sort of encounter it was.

Exactly.

Next, are you really sure you want to make the argument that Mark really did have some sort of encounter with Jesus after the resurrection and then went on to make a story up that it was a physical encounter?

For now, I'll just say yes. There's certainly more nuance than that, but we're not exactly dealing with nuance right now.

I would think that they all believed it to be a physical encounter which is why they were all proclaiming a resurrection.

I know you would, but you haven't offered us a reason to think that you're right.

In other words, we can know they all had some sort of encounter, and I do not see where any of them believed it to simply be a "spiritual" or "imagined" encounter, and if they all truly believed it to be a physical encounter and it was some other sort of encounter, this would not mean the story was made up, but rather they were all (including Mark) badly mistaken.

Remember this?

What we cannot insist upon, is what sort of encounter it was.

These can't both be true. Pick a lane.

I mean, are you suggesting that all the rest were somehow convinced they had encountered the real physical Jesus, but Mark somehow knew that what he experienced was not the physical Jesus, and he made that part up?

No.

Please make this make sense.

None of them believed it was a physical encounter. The stories of a physical encounter were allegorical about their experience with the spiritually risen Christ. An exact analogy is Winnie-the-Pooh talking to Christopher Robin and the other talking toys as an allegory of Christopher Robin's actual, meaningful, but imaginary relationship with his toys.

Are you saying that Mark is the actual author of the Gospel attributed to him

No. "Mark" is shorthand for "the actual author of the Gospel attributed to Mark, whoever she was."

and are you going on to say that this author did have some sort of experience,

For the sake of argument, yes.

and that he knew what sort of experience it was

No. We don't know what he knew or thought about the experience, even if Habermas is right about the majority of scholars.

and made up a story that he knew was not true?

In a historically accurate sense of "true?" Yes. He made up a story that he knew was not true.

I am still off track here,

Yes.

because the point I am attempting to get to is, most critics want to insist that we have no idea who the authors of the Gospels are, and we do not know when they were authored, but you seem to be insisting that Mark was the actual author of the Gospel attributed to him, which would put Mark right there on the scene, being alive at the time of the events, which is what most critics want to avoid.

This is an example of that extrapolation for which you're rapidly becoming famous.

I'm accepting for the sake of argument that some set of early followers had an experience and that the author of Mark either was one or was in a position to have heard about it.

Because you see, I have no problem admitting (and not simply for the sake of the argument) that we cannot insist on who the authors of the Gospels may have been, but you seem to be insistent that Mark was indeed the author of the Gospel attributed to him,

That's weird, because I haven't.

and you go on to acknowledge that this same Mark indeed had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after the crucifixion,

For the sake of argument and as a steel man of your claim, sure.

and you seem to be saying that this Mark knew that this experience was not a real physical encounter, but rather knew it to be spiritual, or imagined,

Especially if he's the one that experienced it.

and he went on to make up the story that it was a physical encounter.

Yes.

If not, then how can we know Mark did in fact have a spiritual, and or imagined encounter,

We know neither that he did nor that he didn't.

and made up the story that it was physical, since the author of Mark does not identify himself?

What does that have to do with anything? Mark's ability to have an encounter with the risen Jesus is a steel man of your position. If we go with the scholars, he wasn't even familiar with the area of Palestine in which the events of the Gospels were set, so anything he knew was hearsay.

This fits the "evidence and data" better than a physical resurrection

What does?

Spiritual encounters and made-up, allegorical stories.

The fact that we can know that all these folks could not have made the story up,

That's still not true.

and you are actually adding to the fact that Mark did indeed have an encounter, and somehow knew that it was spiritual, and or imagined, and he made the story up that it was physical?

Sure.

GOOD GRIEF!

Your personal incredulity notwithstanding.

Your problem is the fact that we all know that any explanation of these things we can know would be more likely than a resurrection.

Why is that a problem for my explanation? My explanation is that five different and irreconcilable allegories about some spiritual experience is far more likely than someone coming back from the dead. Isn't that what you're saying now?

As an example, we can all agree that the story being made up would be far more likely than a resurrection.

Yes.

However, we also know that it is not possible that the story was made up.

You're the only one that "knows" that.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #63]

Post 62.

[RBD]

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.

Jesus being a man on earth is not debatable.

Otherwise, what people believe or don't believe about Him in the Bible, is irrelevant:

Rom 10:16
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our reportFor what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

So long as the Bible remains unerring within it's own writings, as well as with historical facts, then anyone can believe what it says about Jesus being the resurrected Christ and Lord, and no one can intelligently say it can't be true, since all things in the Bible are flawless, despite the many amount of people seeking to find and prove error therein.

That includes people like me, who became a believer after finding my own search for internal flaws were errors on my part, not the Bible.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2).

True. He was Saul of Tarsus a leading Jewish persecutor of Christians. Until the Lord appeared to him on the road, and gave him an opportunity to repent of attacking Him.

I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

You mean scattered abroad with many other Jews.

Jas 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

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 resolution of that conflict.

Impressive religious revisionism. Sounds really scholarly.

The epistles to the Christians and their churches after the sack of Jerusalem, were firsthand from the Apostles James, Peter, Jude, and John. Including Revelation.

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position.

You mean you don't know Jesus is a myth, but say so anyway. Or, just don't know anything, and say things anyway as though you do?

[POI]

Jesus being a man on earth is not debatable.

Of course it's debatable. It's being debated here, as we speak.

Otherwise, what people believe or don't believe about Him in the Bible, is irrelevant:

Exactly, and I already pointed this out in the OP.

So long as the Bible remains unerring within it's own writings,

We've already been over this. The Bible is erring. One or more of the authors believed the world was a flat disk, which is why the 'flat earther society' is even a thing. Which is why many Christian apologists are forced to spin the text so that (the words written don't really mean what is written). (It must be taken out of context.)

as well as with historical facts, then anyone can believe what it says about Jesus being the resurrected Christ and Lord, and no one can intelligently say it can't be true, since all things in the Bible are flawless, despite the many amount of people seeking to find and prove error therein.

Since you only need one error, I only provided one. But you know you cannot spin it, which is why you instead ignore it.

That includes people like me, who became a believer after finding my own search for internal flaws were errors on my part, not the Bible.

That sounds swell. What is the evidence(s) for Jesus's existence?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #65]


We have already demonstrated that it is impossible for you to be agnostic toward Jesus being a myth, because we have demonstrated that you know in that mind of yours that the story of the resurrection of Jesus was not made up. If you know in your mind that the resurrection of Jesus could not have possibly been made up, then you also know in that mind that Jesus could not have possibly been a myth. To do such a thing would be what is called cognitive dissonance. We know that you know what cognitive dissonance is, which means you know that what you are doing would equal cognitive dissonance.

The above clearly demonstrates that your problem is not cognitive dissonance. Rather, it is clear now that the problem is what I have been saying all along, which is the fact that just like when you were a Christian, you choose what it is you would rather believe, and the facts and evidence is not going to get in the way. You are the one who freely admits to being a convinced Christian who did not use the mind to be convinced. This demonstrates one who chooses what it is they would rather believe. My friend, you are demonstrating that nothing has changed but the mind. The thinking process is no different at all.

I mean, you are admitting that we have enough facts and evidence to know the reports of the resurrection of Jesus was not made up, and you know what cognitive dissonance is, and yet you continue to want to insist that you are agnostic toward whether Jesus even existed or not, even though you know that this would equal cognitive dissonance. I mean, you are demonstrating that the facts and evidence have nothing to do with what it is you would rather believe, nor does the fact that you know that holding both of these views would necessarily be to demonstrate cognitive dissonance.

I would really love to continue on exposing the thinking process here, but I am going to save it. So then, you can let it go, but if you continue to post these already dead horses, I am going to continue on exposing the thinking process.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #68]

Post 62. Thnx.

[RBD]

Jesus being a man on earth is not debatable.

Of course it's debatable.

Not in available historical records and accounts.

It's being debated here, as we speak.

Only in denial or revisionist 'history'.

And so how does someone saying Jesus is a myth!, also claim to be 'agnostic' about it? Do you mean you don't know, but still say so?

If you want to pose as an honest agnostic and objective observer in the matter, change the exclamation to a question mark: Jesus is a myth?