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]

[Replying to RBD in post #70]

It's obvious you have not read the original post very closely. I created this thread to let folks duke it out. Present your case. The more I research, the more I question if a Jesus character really existed? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't? Since you are in the position that he really did exist, please demonstrate how you know this for sure?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #70]

It's obvious you have not read the original post very closely. The more I research, the more I question if a Jesus character really existed? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't?

It's obvious you're trying to pose as an objective observer while declaring something a myth!. The only question is why the pretense? Especially when it's an insult to other people's intelligence, if not your own.

When someone is so willing to show dishonesty about themselves, why should anyone care what they think of others?

Since you are in the position that he really did exist, please demonstrate how you know this for sure?

Google for the historical records.

Otherwise, if someone thinks the writers of the NT were just a bunch of uneducated idiots and/or characterless liars, then debating stupid is a waste of time.

If anyone thinks the Bible, especially the gospels are only a myth, then their ignorance is not about the Bible, but only about myths.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

No mythographer ever wrote a myth with a disclaimer...

[RBD]

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.

False. The first recorded report was 50 days after His resurrection:

Act 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

It also depends greatly on what you mean by "reporting."

That's why the gospel of Jesus Christ rising from the dead, is called the gospel report, which Peter first did in public on Pentecost day in Jerusalem.

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).

Correct, the resurrected immortal body is no more natural flesh and blood, but immortal flesh and bone.

[POI]

It's obvious you're trying to pose as an objective observer.

I've said it before, (including within the OP), but I guess I'll say it yet again. For me, it is of little importance as to whether a Jesus really existed or not, as my core beliefs would not change either way. If he did exist, I still have plenty to question surrounding him and his own claims. The more I dive into the claims of him and the claims surrounding him, the more I question if he even was a real figure from antiquity? The title of the thread is for 'effect.' Nothing more. I honestly do not know, anymore, if a Jesus character was real? I'm open either way. For years, I would have been on the staunch side of 'he existed'. Now, I'm more neutral. The stage is yours. Have-at-it. Whats ya got?

The only question is why the pretense? Especially when it's an insult to other people's intelligence, if not your own.

The topic is created to allow for both asserted sides to plead their case(s).

When someone is so willing to show dishonesty about themselves, why should anyone care what they think of others?

And yet, here you are responding? I've asked you to address/reconcile a very important conclusion in one of your created threads, and yet, you offer little to no response there. Interesting....?

Google for the historical records.

Oh wow! I never thought of this? Thanx man! Which ones do I accept, and which ones do I reject, and why?

Otherwise, if someone thinks the writers of the NT were just a bunch of uneducated idiots and/or characterless liars, then debating stupid is a waste of time.

Okay?

If anyone thinks the Bible, especially the gospels are only a myth, then their ignorance is not about the Bible, but only about myths.

Do you have anything important to add, which I cannot just gleam from 'Google' in a few minutes, or not? Your whining is starting to get old.

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to POI in post #74]



POI, where the embarrassing FACTS relative to Jesus being an outright MYTH in his thread, are not addressed by the pseudo-christians, other than for them to runaway from them and hide!

Take for instance, the number one pseudo-christian runaway from disturbing biblical axioms, known as "RBD," where in other threads, even his own, poor ol' RBD has to run away from Atheists posts to him in explicitly showing him to be blatantly and biblically WRONG in what he thought he knew regarding his Jewish Bible, he didn't! Where he has to be embarrassingly corrected by Atheists in front of the membership!

Now, notice that RBD is trying to stay above the water line in his discussion with you, BUT, if RBD thinks that Jesus is not a MYTH, then by me alone, why doesn't he address my revealing posts numbers 14 and 36 that show Jesus is logically a MYTH?! Whereas, as once again, the pseudo-christian RBD has to remain in hiding from said posts because he knows that he cannot show that they are wrong.

In essence, RBD is who he pretends to be, where the astute Atheists own him and his primitive and barbaric faith in Christianity outright!

Remember, all Religion Discussion Forums has to have a pseudo-christian that is the number one BIBLE FOOL, therefore, RBD takes the cake!



.

[RBD]

It's obvious you're trying to pose as an objective observer.

The title of the thread is for 'effect.' Nothing more.

Of course the title is for effect, and nothing more. And when there's nothing there worth looking at to back up the claim, then it's a waste of time.

However, the title effectively proves the claimant is personal hypocritical. And an insult to objective intelligence.

When someone is so willing to show dishonesty about themselves, why should anyone care what they think of others?

And yet, here you are responding?

Not to the claim, but only to the backpedaling claimant. Which remains a mystery. No one is upset about the claim, but only wants to see any reasons for it.

If the title were: Is Jesus a myth? Then everything you say would be true. Your stated purpose would be correct: you're only an objective observer, agnostic in the matter, only looking for factual responses. You could then make objective observations about them. But the tile proves none of that is true with you, which effectively rules you out from your falsely written purpose.

You've effectively made yourself exempt from the argument, and so I would never insult myself by offering anything to you. Other than personal correction.

Google for the historical records.

Oh wow! I never thought of this? Thanx man!

No problem. It's the most you get from me on the subject. You clear your own air, and stand by the title, or agree it should be changed, then there's enough honesty there worth responding to.

I would gladly respond to someone standing by their own claim, or someone objectively looking for responses. I don't bother with duplicity, whether from other believers, or unbelievers. I've seen it on both sides of the aisle in open debate forums like this:

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

It's too accommodating to playing childish personal games from an anonymous keyboard, rather than face to face. That's true across all such public forums.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #76]

You are ducking out, based upon a found "technicality". Nothing more.

[RBD]

[Replying to POI in post #74]



POI, where the embarrassing FACTS relative to Jesus being an outright MYTH in his thread, are not addressed by the pseudo-christians, other than for them to runaway from them and hide!

I haven't seen any facts, but then I haven't searched all the posts.

However, we know it's impossible to prove a negative. There three ways to support it, 2 of which can prove it.

Show historical records, that should have included the Jew Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, and do not. But do record their other children. That would be sufficient proof.

Show historical claims close to the period, that Jesus did not exist, and that He is only a fictional character. It would not be proof, but would certainly show it's been a longtime claim, and not just a modern made-up one.

Show in the Bible anywhere, that Jesus was not a man of flesh and blood, but only a kind of spirit appearing as a man. That could qualify as a fiction character of myth. (Docetics do that, but then hypocritical try to claim Jesus was a man on earth.)

And then, there's the 4th option of rejecting factual records of the Jew Jesus. But then, that just shows the whole argument is a personally made up waste of time.

[Difflugia]

Show historical claims close to the period, that Jesus did not exist, and that He is only a fictional character. It would not be proof, but would certainly show it's been a longtime claim, and not just a modern made-up one.

The claims weren't that Jesus wasn't real, but that Jesus was not of this world.

That said, Irenaeus of Lyons catalogued a variety of beliefs that he claimed were extant in the late second century in his Against All Heresies. Among them was the claim that Jesus was a spiritual being similar to the Holy Spirit, called an on. From Book 1 Chapter 3:

Such also is the account of the generation of the later ons, namely of the first Christ and of the Holy Spirit, both of whom were produced by the Father after the repentance [of Sophia], and of the second Christ (whom they also style Saviour), who owed his being to the joint contributions [of the ons]. They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it.

In the same chapter, he describes how some of the Gospel stories are allegorical parables explaining events that took place in the heavens rather than on Earth:

The production, again, of the Duodecad of the ons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve. The other eighteen ons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months after His resurrection from the dead.

[RBD]

Show historical claims close to the period, that Jesus did not exist, and that He is only a fictional character. It would not be proof, but would certainly show it's been a longtime claim, and not just a modern made-up one.

The claims weren't that Jesus wasn't real, but that Jesus was not of this world.

Not in this thread, where He is called a myth. Excuse me, myth!

Using certain Scriptures, where Jesus says He's not this world, was never understood nor argued at any time, that He was a myth that didn't exist.

And no one at this time is claiming to use those Scriptures, as any reason for saying He's only a myth! And did not exist.

That said, Irenaeus of Lyons catalogued a variety of beliefs that he claimed were extant in the late second century in his Against All Heresies. Among them was the claim that Jesus was a spiritual being similar to the Holy Spirit, called an on. From Book 1 Chapter 3:

Docetics used the Scripture to claim Jesus was only a spirit temporarily inhabiting a physical body, like angels visiting earth. Of course, that would mean all sons of God by Jesus Christ are now only angels temporarily inhabiting physical bodies, without feeling nor suffering.

Jhn 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Not true, I can tell you that...

Such also is the account of the generation of the later ons, namely of the first Christ and of the Holy Spirit, both of whom were produced by the Father after the repentance [of Sophia], and of the second Christ (whom they also style Saviour), who owed his being to the joint contributions [of the ons]. They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it.

Nor do the Gnostics deny Jesus ever existed. They're certainly full of personal mystical revelations about the Bible, made up in their own mystical minds:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

But they never said Jesus didn't exist.

In the same chapter, he describes how some of the Gospel stories are allegorical parables explaining events that took place in the heavens rather than on Earth:

Dittoes for pseudo-believers then and now, making any true prophecy and/or doctrine of Scripture just allegorical, symbolic, or a parable, when they want to believe something other than the Scriptures as plainly written. That's especially true with His 2nd coming to earth:

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

I call them the writers of their own personal Symbol Man's Bible... But, once again, along with the Docetics and Agnostics, neither do these allegorizes and symbolizers deny Jesus ever existed.

Questioning whether Jesus existed, is a nonstarter for unserious people, who reject any historical records, and have nothing better to do than say senseless things for effect.

The production, again, of the Duodecad of the ons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve. The other eighteen ons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months after His resurrection from the dead.

I don't see a problem here, unless someone is saying it's only allegory or fable...