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

[SiNcE_1985]

The only claim so far is that you're going to slap us with your mighty intellect.

A claim that's been tried, tested, and proven.

Exactly. All bark and no bite.

The POTUS from 2008-2016, was all Barack and no bite.

My claim is that you don't actually know what any of the arguments are and I'm giving you the chance to prove me wrong.

How does the claim "Paul's Jesus didn't exist" equate to "You don't actually know what any of the arguments are".

It doesn't.

I'm not challenging your facts or logic, because you haven't provided any. Instead, I'm challenging your hubris.

And I'm challenging whether or not you can back up your empty claim.

If you actually want to engage with the subject, I've already had the exact conversation you're bluffing about in this same thread. If you want to respond, here's your opportunity, or you can just keep shouting that your dad could beat me up if he were here. Like you said, there's not much going on.

Ok, deal.

I'll see what's up.

[SiNcE_1985]

My point is I make threads where I plant the flag. I've repeatedly asked for ANY Christians to address this thread (viewtopic.php?t=38525) and no Christians have. Likely because it's a difficult one for Christians to 'justify'. Hence, it's better just to handwave it. Oh, that's right, you wrote the book on handwaving basic observation(s) which challenge your faith.

Questions like that all comes down to moral relativity..you don't agree with God's moral compass.

It is a Pandora's box, and opening a box like that will ultimately get us nowhere...and considering the fact that it's clear no answer will be good enough for you, nor would you likely be a believer even if those things in the Bible aren't what they are...those conversations are literally pointless.

Here are some more notables you could have picked. where I make a claim:

viewtopic.php?t=42679
viewtopic.php?t=40608&start=690
viewtopic.php?t=40313&start=280
viewtopic.php?t=42605&start=50

In essence, I've told you before. If the vast majority of my country and surroundings were instead proposing/asserting the truthiness in 'Xenu', then I would likely be in a different forum, likely called 'debating Scientology.' Rather than invite discord among my close family and friends, I instead inquire here. Got it?

What country is this?

And if you're not a follower or practitioner of any religion, then conversations regarding religion shouldn't be part of your day-to-day, habitual life.

What we have here is people who profess unbelief in Christianity, yet they're dedicating their lives to probing the Bible, asking irrelevant (to their lives) questions about it....creating irrelevant threads about it.

It blows my mind.

I've found that the ones who self-boast the most, (for which you are a prime example of this), are usually ultimately the ones who take the hardest 'L's. But the unfortunate reality remains, is that often times, you do not even realize you are taking these 'L's. But others do.

Not really. I'm saying I dismiss or discard pretty much all far-fetched claims, whether they come from the present or the past. I think this is where the fork in the road happens. Meaning, you already pre-suppose and auto-include the far-fetched, where-as I do not. For example, where I would dismiss a far-fetched claim, you might instead just assume it happened and only try to discern whether the far-fetched claim was imposed by either 'evil' verses 'good'. Hence, when Alexander the Great claimed he was the son of Zeus, I would just dismiss this claim outright, where-as you might instead sometimes take a differing approach or direction.

I wanna see you dismiss abiogenesis claims with the same vigor you dismiss religious claims.

I do not believe the Bible checks off any of those boxes.

I don't expect anything different.

[SiNcE_1985]

If you actually want to engage with the subject, I've already had the exact conversation you're bluffing about in this same thread. If you want to respond, here's your opportunity, or you can just keep shouting that your dad could beat me up if he were here. Like you said, there's not much going on.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be responding to in that link.

[POI]

The point here is... If you wanted to 'intellectually slap' me specifically, then it stands to reason you would then pick a topic for which I actually plant my flag within. I've created many. Many of which were provided with virtually no responses from Christians at all.

Questions like that all comes down to moral relativity..you don't agree with God's moral compass.

The fact is that you are already waging this pre-emptive defense means you already understand the point of this thread, for which no Christian will touch, including you. Again, see what the debate questions ASK.

It is a Pandora's box, and opening a box like that will ultimately get us nowhere

Earnestly answering the debate question(s) gets the Christian nowhere but into an intellectual pickle. Which is why it has been an avoided set of questions for years now. The outsider can easily surmise one of (2) logical conclusions:

1) A god exists who condones forms of 'rape'. (In which case, the apologists will go to 'work' here accordingly....)
2) Ancient humans wrote this passage alone, as such a command was not actually given by a god. (Which then begs the next logical question of apologists... ) If this command was not issued by god, then how do we know if any of these other commands were?

...and considering the fact that it's clear no answer will be good enough for you, nor would you likely be a believer even if those things in the Bible aren't what they are...those conversations are literally pointless.

I gave (2) answers that are "good enough". You just don't want to apply either of them, as either (2) will cause major problems for the Christian. Hence, the demonstrated perpetual avoidance...

More handwaving... There are plenty of topics here which expose the bad Christian apologetics. You are avoiding them.

What country is this?

You are missing the point. I'm in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion. There are many. If I were instead in a country where a differing religion was the dominant one, and most of my family and friends were also making assertions, in the name of this illogical alternative religion/god, then I would be in another forum engaging in discord.

And if you're not a follower or practitioner of any religion, then conversations regarding religion shouldn't be part of your day-to-day, habitual life.

I've already explained this to you in the prior response, and also in prior exchanges. I'm practicing the discord with people who are NOT in my family and friend group. This arena invites it.

What we have here is people who profess unbelief in Christianity, yet they're dedicating their lives to probing the Bible, asking irrelevant (to their lives) questions about it....creating irrelevant threads about it.

See all my prior responses.

It blows my mind.

It blows my mind that you still fail to get it.

I wanna see you dismiss abiogenesis claims with the same vigor you dismiss religious claims.

I'm agnostic to all non-theoretical sciences. And EVEN IF a 'first cause' was ever to be discovered, I've given plenty of arguments as to why the "Christian god" can logically be no part in any of it. Hence, as this topic suggests, even IF a Jesus character really existed, he likely was not who you believe he really is.

And since a skeptic has planted his flag, stating a "Jesus was a myth", I'd like to see if any believer can debunk his arguments? So far, you are off to a very shaky start.

[Difflugia]

I don't know what I'm supposed to be responding to in that link.

I know. That's why I'm not rehashing the conversation I already had. Something about pearls and swine.

Your claim is that I owe you more evidence than I've already presented that Paul's Jesus is entirely heavenly and therefore didn't exist. Paul never mentions an earthly Jesus. Paul's only interactions with Jesus were in visions after his crucifixion. Paul doesn't mention anyone else interacting with Jesus as a living man on Earth. Paul's Jesus existed only in heaven, ergo Paul's Jesus didn't exist.

The Jesus of Revelation is in the same boat. There is no mention of Jesus as a human being on Earth. The Revelator is having a vision in the "spirit of the Lord's Day," and Jesus is speaking to him from heaven. There is no mention of Jesus ever having walked upon the Earth. The Jesus of Revelation didn't exist.

Now, I get that you want very badly to deflect from your own lack of understanding of the topic, but if you actually want to engage in any sort of good faith argument, my suggestion is that you first at least read the seven Pauline epistles independently of the rest of the New Testament to get a handle on Paul's actual theology. Second, if you're going to toss around "the scholars" as some sort of trump card, you should also at least understand the arguments that they're making in order to defend them. If you want Bart Ehrman to be your hero, then read his book on the subject to see how he views things. I'd bet any amount of money that the arguments he makes aren't the ones you think he makes.

If you're not going to actually learn about the subject, then just go back to 10¹⁰¹²³.

[SiNcE_1985]

The point here is... If you wanted to 'intellectually slap' me specifically, then it stands to reason you would then pick a topic for which I actually plant my flag within. I've created many. Many of which were provided with virtually no responses from Christians at all.

If (since) no answer is good enough, then no response is necessary.

The fact is that you are already waging this pre-emptive defense means you already understand the point of this thread, for which no Christian will touch, including you. Again, see what the debate questions ASK.

?

Earnestly answering the debate question(s) gets the Christian nowhere but into an intellectual pickle. Which is why it has been an avoided set of questions for years now. The outsider can easily surmise one of (2) logical conclusions:

1) A god exists who condones forms of 'rape'. (In which case, the apologists will go to 'work' here accordingly....)

I reject any premise that God condones rape...and any conclusion based off that false premise is fallacious.

2) Ancient humans wrote this passage alone, as such a command was not actually given by a god. (Which then begs the next logical question of apologists... ) If this command was not issued by god, then how do we know if any of these other commands were?

Irrelevant talking point based on false premise.

I gave (2) answers that are "good enough". You just don't want to apply either of them, as either (2) will cause major problems for the Christian. Hence, the demonstrated perpetual avoidance...

?

More handwaving... There are plenty of topics here which expose the bad Christian apologetics. You are avoiding them.

Am I avoiding them, or dismissing them?

You are missing the point. I'm in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion.

What country is this?

There are many. If I were instead in a country where a differing religion was the dominant one, and most of my family and friends were also making assertions, in the name of this illogical alternative religion/god, then I would be in another forum engaging in discord.

What country?

I've already explained this to you in the prior response, and also in prior exchanges. I'm practicing the discord with people who are NOT in my family and friend group. This arena invites it.

The religion shouldn't concern you, PERIOD.

I'm agnostic to all non-theoretical sciences. And EVEN IF a 'first cause' was ever to be discovered, I've given plenty of arguments as to why the "Christian god" can logically be no part in any of it. Hence, as this topic suggests, even IF a Jesus character really existed, he likely was not who you believe he really is.

Opinions.

And since a skeptic has planted his flag, stating a "Jesus was a myth", I'd like to see if any believer can debunk his arguments? So far, you are off to a very shaky start.

Diff is (and has always been) light work.

[SiNcE_1985]

I know. That's why I'm not rehashing the conversation I already had. Something about pearls and swine.

Why the hell did you post the link then?

Your claim is that I owe you more evidence than I've already presented that Paul's Jesus is entirely heavenly and therefore didn't exist. Paul never mentions an earthly Jesus. Paul's only interactions with Jesus were in visions after his crucifixion. Paul doesn't mention anyone else interacting with Jesus as a living man on Earth. Paul's Jesus existed only in heaven, ergo Paul's Jesus didn't exist.

The Jesus of Revelation is in the same boat. There is no mention of Jesus as a human being on Earth. The Revelator is having a vision in the "spirit of the Lord's Day," and Jesus is speaking to him from heaven. There is no mention of Jesus ever having walked upon the Earth. The Jesus of Revelation didn't exist.

See, that's where you are WRONG.

Paul said, 1 Corin 11:23-25..

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Paul is rehashing The Last Supper (The Lord's Supper), an event that he wasn't present for..and an event that is recorded in all four Gospels, all of which were written AFTER his epistle.

So, if Paul is mentioning Jesus' betrayal, his last supper with his disciples, AND is quoting what Jesus said during it..then he is mentioning an earthly Jesus...contrary to falsity you just stated.

That's why apologetics is important, to put nonsense like this in check.

Now, I get that you want very badly to deflect from your own lack of understanding of the topic, but if you actually want to engage in any sort of good faith argument, my suggestion is that you first at least read the seven Pauline epistles independently of the rest of the New Testament to get a handle on Paul's actual theology.

That^..

Or..

You can simply tell me how Paul's theology differs (contradicts) from Jesus.

Or, is this the second time where you are either unable or simply refuse to back up your claims.

Second, if you're going to toss around "the scholars" as some sort of trump card, you should also at least understand the arguments that they're making in order to defend them. If you want Bart Ehrman to be your hero, then read his book on the subject to see how he views things. I'd bet any amount of money that the arguments he makes aren't the ones you think he makes.

Bart Ehrman believes in the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

I've heard him express this out of his own mouth...and that is what I thought the question of the thread is asking.

If you're not going to actually learn about the subject, then just go back to 10¹⁰¹²³.

I'll gladly go back to that expression if you ever want to engage me with the subject of fine tuning.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #166]

More of the same, handwaving and blind optimism.....

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #168]

The question of the debate, contradicts the title of the thread...when the question of the debate, should be the title of the thread.

And not only that, in the OP, as you lay out the focal point of the thread in summary, neither of your two points give any credence to Jesus (the risen Messiah), being true.

So, everything about the thread is one sided in favor of a specific position, while giving the other side (believer's side) any credence whatsoever.

And to top it off, you disingenuously claim to take an agnostic position on the issue, when nothing about the title, nor summary of the thread suggests that you are.

An agnostic position would be more of a "maybe Jesus is the risen Messiah, or maybe he isn't".

But yet, everything about the thread is, "Maybe he isn't", and no "Maybe he is".

So basically, there is nothing agnostic about the thread, while it is falsely portrayed as such.

The entire thread is a farce; is what I'm trying to say.

[POI]

The question of the debate, contradicts the title of the thread...when the question of the debate,

This is because you do not understand satire.

in the OP, as you lay out the focal point of the thread in summary, neither of your two points give any credence to Jesus (the risen Messiah), being true.

The topic is here to question the mere existence of a Jesus.

you disingenuously claim to take an agnostic position on the issue, when nothing about the title, nor summary of the thread suggests that you are.

I honestly do not know if a Jesus really existed, or not? A few posts back, I provided my meter-stick as to how I evaluate if an expressed character from antiquity actually likely existed, or not. You offered nothing forward from my provided given meter-stick. Thus far, you've offered virtually nothing to substantiate the position of an actual Jesus existing in history. I'm still waiting for this. As it stands, it seems if I were to compare 'Jesus' to other expressed characters from antiquity, I'm not so certain a Jesus stacks up, when compared to some of them?.?.?