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

[historia]

Was Jesus a real character from antiquity?

Yes, almost certainly.

If so, how do we know?

What do you mean by "know"?

[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!

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

^^ DUH! What a great runaway conclusion again at your expense, where you are obviously too SCARED to look for them in this thread to be made the Bible Fool again if you tried to answer for them!


Here, let me help you with my two posts that you have been running away from since they were posted, and again, please no more lame pseudo-christian EXCUSES from you in why you didn't address them in the first place, okay? We thank you.

Here are my 2 posts numbers 14 and 36 as shown below in this thread that show your brutal serial killer Jesus as God is a MYTH, and that you are to address! If you want to make the Atheists really laugh, then use your Satanic pseudo-christian Apologetic Books instead of your own skewed thinking, okay?

viewtopic.php?p=1175065#p1175065

viewtopic.php?p=1175244#p1175244


RBD, NOW DON'T BE RUNNING AWAY AS USUAL FROM DISTURBING POSTS SHOWN ABOVE, BECAUSE JESUS IS WATCHING YOU !!! (HEBREWS 4:13)



.

[1DoubtingThomas]

Was Jesus a real character from antiquity?

Yes, almost certainly.

^^^ historia, you stated that most certainly that your serial killer God named JESUS was a real character in antiquity, therefore the Persian God MITHRAS was also a great real character in antiquity, and was present at the time of Jesus. Therefore PROVE without any doubt whatsoever, that both of these two God's of mention existed in the first place!

EXPLAIN:


Thanking you in advance.



.

[Difflugia]

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!

Then you misunderstand the mythicist argument and what "myth" means in that context.

Docetics used the Scripture to claim Jesus was only a spirit temporarily inhabiting a physical body, like angels visiting earth.

There are several versions of docetism. What they have in common is the idea that Jesus only seemed human. It comes from the Greek word , which means "to think," "to imagine," or "to seem," as opposed to what is real.

Of course, that would mean all sons of God by Jesus Christ are now only angels temporarily inhabiting physical bodies, without feeling nor suffering.

I'd be curious to hear your theological reasoning behind that.

Not true, I can tell you that...

I bet you can tell me lots of things.

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

Yes. That's what the gnostics were saying, that the Gospel stories of an earthly Jesus were "allegory or fable" about the real Jesus, who was one of the ons, or purely spiritual beings.

[historia]

Was Jesus a real character from antiquity?

Yes, almost certainly.

historia, you stated that most certainly that your serial killer God named JESUS was a real character in antiquity

No, I said that it is almost certain that Jesus was a "real character from antiquity," by which I mean that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure best explains the available historical evidence.

therefore the Persian God MITHRAS was also a great real character in antiquity, and was present at the time of Jesus. Therefore PROVE without any doubt whatsoever, that both of these two God's of mention existed in the first place!

That is a non sequitur.

EXPLAIN:

A non sequitur is a statement that does not follow logically from anything previously said.

Thanking you in advance.

Welcoming you in arrears.

[POI]

What do you mean by "know"?

To the same, or even better, level of confidence in 'knowing' that Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Sargon of Akkad, Ashoka, and the Buddha existed? And if so, what evidence(s) lead you to this position?

[RBD]

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!

Then you misunderstand the mythicist argument and what "myth" means in that context.

Anyone calling the Bible a myth, doesn't know what a myth is. And no one calling the Bible a myth!, has any question nor doubt it. The only question remains why bother to pretend otherwise.

Docetics used the Scripture to claim Jesus was only a spirit temporarily inhabiting a physical body, like angels visiting earth.

There are several versions of docetism. What they have in common is the idea that Jesus only seemed human. It comes from the Greek word , which means "to think," "to imagine," or "to seem," as opposed to what is real.

Correct. They never said the Bible was a myth, and Jesus did not exist.

Of course, that would mean all sons of God by Jesus Christ are now only angels temporarily inhabiting physical bodies, without feeling nor suffering.

I'd be curious to hear your theological reasoning behind that.

You just did from the Bible.

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

Yes. That's what the gnostics were saying, that the Gospel stories of an earthly Jesus were "allegory or fable" about the real Jesus, who was one of the ons, or purely spiritual beings.

Ok. That's their imagination, which did not include the real Jesus did not exist.

There is no record nor charge in antiquity of the Jesus not existing. It's nothing but a childish throw-off, not worth arguing. Including the childish attempt to appear objective about it.

Other than that, people trying to turn the Bible or parts of the Bible into mythical fables, is an interesting exercise in literary argument. Some unbelievers do it to dismiss the Bible, while some pseudo-believers do it to change the Bible.

[1DoubtingThomas]

historia, you stated that most certainly that your serial killer God named JESUS was a real character in antiquity

No, I said that it is almost certain that Jesus was a "real character from antiquity," by which I mean that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure best explains the available historical evidence.

^^^ historia, then when you said "Almost Certain" that Jesus was a real character from antiquity, then this is NOT AN ABSOLUTE, where you therefore question Jesus' existence in the first place which is BLASPHEME to a pseudo-christian like YOU!!! .... The Atheist thanks you for such an admittance!



Therefore the Persian God MITHRAS was also a great real character in antiquity, and was present at the time of Jesus. Therefore PROVE without any doubt whatsoever, that both of these two God's of mention existed in the first place!

That is a non sequitur.

NO, it is not a "non sequitur" like you stated, simply because the God Mithra is another primitive thinking God concept that was different from Jesus, that existed at the time of your brutal serial killer Jesus of innocent INFANTS and Children (1 Samuel 15:2-3) GET IT?!


Historia, since you had to run away from "explaining" your Bible ineptness pertaining to the godly questions that I asked of you, then you no more can call yourself a Christian than the Muslim Osama bin Laden could!




.

[historia]

What do you mean by "know"?

To the same, or even better, level of confidence in 'knowing' that Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Sargon of Akkad, Ashoka, and the Buddha existed? And if so, what evidence(s) lead you to this position?

So, I think this is precisely how we shouldn't approach historical questions. Historians generally don't set an arbitrary threshold for determining whether something happened in the past or not, nor do they go around collecting "evidences" to meet that threshold.

Rather, historical inquiry runs the other way around: We observe that there is historical evidence in the form of various written accounts from the past. The goal of the historian is to determine which hypothesis best explains that evidence in the light of our background knowledge.

Historians aren't looking to "prove" what happened in the past, so much as explain how the evidence ended up the way that it did -- like in a crime scene investigation. If one hypothesis exceeds other alternative hypotheses in terms of explanatory scope and explanatory power, and is less ad hoc than other hypotheses, then that explanation provides us "knowledge" of the past.

So, 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.

[historia]

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.

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.