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]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #175]

It's obvious you've got nutt'n to offer in this exchange. You are just be-popp'n and skit-skat'n around, floundering and doing absolutely nothing to progress this convo. forward in any real capacity. You asked me a question, for which I answered thoroughly in post 154. Since then, you are just grasping at straws to try and score very cheap points on a topic in which has been completely clarified to you time and time again.

*Fat fingers on the thanks*.

The archives show that I responded to post 154.

I'm just waiting to see how Jesus is a myth.

That's the only question that matters. All the other stuff is for the birds.

[Clownboat]

This strikes me as the Gish Gallop fallacy.

Google was apparently your friend, and I don't wanna bother with responding to copy & paste work.

Put some thought, effort, and insight into it and maybe we can get somewhere.

These words are my own. I do have them saved on my PC so I no longer have to type them out, but this is my work.
I acknowledge that you are unable to address the theological differences between Paul and Jesus and instead made an ad hominem fallacy and offered slander in place of a reply.

You continue to do you, boo.

[SiNcE_1985]

These words are my own. I do have them saved on my PC so I no longer have to type them out, but this is my work.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

It's still Gish Gallop, regardless.

I acknowledge that you are unable to address the theological differences between Paul and Jesus and instead made an ad hominem fallacy and offered slander in place of a reply.

You continue to do you, boo.

Pick one.

[Clownboat]

I'm just waiting to see how Jesus is a myth.
That's the only question that matters. All the other stuff is for the birds.

In an attempt to keep your emotions out of debate, your preferred god concept is off the table here.
So I ask, when it comes to the available god concepts, are they real or myth?

I assume your answer will be the same as that of an atheist. An atheist just takes your reasoning one god concept further than you do.

[Clownboat]

These words are my own. I do have them saved on my PC so I no longer have to type them out, but this is my work.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

It's still Gish Gallop, regardless.

I acknowledge that you are unable to address the theological differences between Paul and Jesus and instead made an ad hominem fallacy and offered slander in place of a reply.

You continue to do you, boo.

Pick one.

This has already been addressed.
Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "I acknowledge that you are unable to address the theological differences between Paul and Jesus and instead made an ad hominem fallacy and offered slander in place of a reply."

In debate, please do not ask for things you actually don't want to review. Wasting the time of those who are willing to debate you is rude. Something about knowing them by their fruit comes to mind.

[SiNcE_1985]

This has already been addressed.
Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "I acknowledge that you are unable to address the theological differences between Paul and Jesus and instead made an ad hominem fallacy and offered slander in place of a reply."

In debate, please do not ask for things you actually don't want to review. Wasting the time of those who are willing to debate you is rude. Something about knowing them by their fruit comes to mind.

I get accused of wasting time, despite telling you to pick one.

Ok.

[SiNcE_1985]

In an attempt to keep your emotions out of debate, your preferred god concept is off the table here.
So I ask, when it comes to the available god concepts, are they real or myth?

The thread is specifically about Jesus.

Look, I understand that once the name "Jesus" gets mentioned, it makes people very uncomfortable..but perhaps you can grin and bear this discomfort for the sake of dialogue.

I assume your answer will be the same as that of an atheist. An atheist just takes your reasoning one god concept further than you do.

One step further = the difference between life & death.

[Clownboat]

I get accused of wasting time, despite telling you to pick one.

Ok.

You asked for theological differences between Paul and Jesus. I supplied you with some.
You failed to address the theological differences and instead offered an ad hominem and slander. Which is a waste of time in debate.

[Clownboat]

The thread is specifically about Jesus.

Look, I understand that once the name "Jesus" gets mentioned, it makes people very uncomfortable.. but perhaps you can grin and bear this discomfort for the sake of dialogue.

Your emotions are in the way though, therefore we need to leave Jesus out of it for this one question.
When it comes to the available god concepts, are they real or myth?

I assume your answer will be the same as that of an atheist. An atheist just takes your reasoning one god concept further than you do.

One step further = the difference between life & death.

What a stupid statement to make in debate! I fear you are trying to drag me down to your level so you can beat me with experience, but just on the off chance you aren't, please show that you speak the truth or kindly retract your claim.

[POI]

*Fat fingers on the thanks*.

That is bound to happen when you see red.

The archives show that I responded to post 154. I'm just waiting to see how Jesus is a myth.

Yes, the archives show that you 'responded.' But you did not actually offer an answer. Let's harken back to post 154. You asked me " How do we know Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode war elephants to battle?"

If you were to be honest with yourself, based upon the (4) points I laid out in post 154, which fella presents with more evidence to demonstrate their mere existence between (Caesar and Jesus)? I'd say Caesar. Why?

The evidence for Julius Caesar is considered better than the evidence for Jesus because it includes more contemporary sources, extensive archaeological findings, and Caesar's own writings. Caesar had a public, military, and political life that left a significant, documented, and tangible footprint in history, whereas Jesus was a more private figure whose primary evidence consists of religious texts written decades after his death.

Caesar's own writings, like his accounts of the Gallic Wars, are direct, primary sources from his lifetime.

Contemporaries like Cicero wrote about him during his life, providing corroborating evidence.

There is extensive physical evidence from Caesar's life, such as coins minted with his likeness during his time and numerous public works projects.

Caesar's role as a dictator had an undeniable and public impact that is impossible to mistake or falsify.

However, being these are writing from antiquity, I'd still have to wage a mere probability as to whether or not a Caesar really existed, when compared to say... Abe Lincoln. If I were to compare (Caesar to Abe), Abe clearly WINS.

*******************************

Alternatively, the primary sources for Jesus are the Gospels. They were written decades after his death, and not by eyewitnesses to his life, and they contradict each other in detail. (I tried to show this to you, but you flat out refused to watch the 12-minute video demonstrating that Mark and Luke do not jive.)

Moreover, while there are a few extra-biblical mentions of Jesus, like those from (Tacitus and Josephus), these are often based on hearsay and written even later, largely referencing information from the Gospels themselves.

There is really no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus, as he was not a public figure who left behind a lasting material trail, unlike Caesar, who did. This is why later believers concocted or manufactured physical evidence, like "the Shroud", and the like.

********************************

In essence, as it stands, I'd say the score board is as follows:

The likelihood Abe Lincoln really existed is ~99%.
The likelihood Caesar really existed is ~80%.
The likelihood Jesus really existed is ~50%. ?.?.?.? --- (and I think my rating here is generous)

Your move buddy.