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

[Clownboat]

Even if he wrote it himself, 2,000 years later, non scholarly skeptics on Internet message forums would still move the goalposts by asking "How do we know he actually wrote it".

I acknowledge that if Jesus, the claimed son of a God were to have written his teachings down for us, that we would not be able to distinguish the words of this demigod from those of normal humans.
Now why do you think Jesus would not be able to preserve his message for all of humanity better than mere humans?

Final question. Do you think that it is logical for an all powerful God to have a message written for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priest, theologians and random internet posters to then in interpret the said message?

[POI]

[Replying to OneJack in post #218]

Since you really have nothing to offer in THIS topic, as you basically have conceded that the actual evidence for a Jesus is not only scanty -- (at best), but is also circular -- (as you must appeal to the book which makes the claim that he exists, and there is nothing outside of the book of claims itself to verify), I'm instead redirecting you to the topic below, based upon your response:

viewtopic.php?t=40313&start=280

[POI]

Even if he wrote it himself, 2,000 years later, non scholarly skeptics on Internet message forums would still move the goalposts by asking "How do we know he actually wrote it".

I acknowledge that if Jesus, the claimed son of a God were to have written his teachings down for us, that we would not be able to distinguish the words of this demigod from those of normal humans.
Now why do you think Jesus would not be able to preserve his message for all of humanity better than mere humans?

Final question. Do you think that it is logical for an all powerful God to have a message written for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priest, theologians and random internet posters to then in interpret the said message?

I (kind of sort of) touched on a variation of this Q in red a few posts back. Get ready for excuses and handwaving....

[Clownboat]

The evidence of the existence of prominent men in the world is traceable through tangible things, while the evidence of the existence of Jesus is not traceable through those means, but the bible itself. However, a personal encounter with Jesus is accessible for those who seek and call upon Him in the right way.

Therefore, the meter stick you made is not applicable in evaluating the reality of Jesus’ existence. You’ll never find anything conclusive in any evidence presented to you about the existence of Jesus.

What would you say to people that haven't made an idol out of the Bible and what would you think the Christian god concept would think about such idolization of a man made object?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #224]

What would you say to people that haven't made an idol out of the Bible

If the idols are graven images, those people are not idolaters of such idols. However, they are practicing bibliolatry, similar to the idolatry of graven images, when they worship God through the bible. A clean heart, not the bible, is essential in worshipping God.

and what would you think the Christian god concept would think about such idolization of a man made object?

God, who is omnipotent and transcendent, can't be reduced to a physical object or a book. Anyone who worships God through graven images commits idolatry against Him.

[Clownboat]

What would you say to people that haven't made an idol out of the Bible

If the idols are graven images, those people are not idolaters of such idols. However, they are practicing bibliolatry, similar to the idolatry of graven images, when they worship God through the bible. A clean heart, not the bible, is essential in worshipping God.

I acknowledge your worship/reverence/idolization/love or whatever word we might use for the Bible.
That is why I asked about what you would say to people that don't share in this idolization. Imagine you were talking to a Muslim and said that Jesus is real because of the Bible. Obviously, they wouldn't share in the worship/reverence/idolization/love (whatever they would call it) of the Bible, so using the Bible as justification wouldn't mean much. Therefore I asked, "what would you say to people that haven't made an idol out of the Bible." Surely you understand that saying, "the Bible says this or that" would be very unimpressive to such a person, so what would you say to them, or is idolization of the book really the first requirement?

i·dol·ize
/ˈīdəˌlīz/
verb
gerund or present participle: idolizing
admire, revere, or love greatly or excessively.

and what would you think the Christian god concept would think about such idolization of a man made object?

God, who is omnipotent and transcendent, can't be reduced to a physical object or a book. Anyone who worships God through graven images commits idolatry against Him.

I didn't say that the god concept of the Bible IS the Bible though. I asked what you thought this god concept would think about people that seemingly idolize/worship this man made object. It sounds like that would be idolatry against Him. Therefore, be careful what you make of this book, written by humans or you just might be guilty of the idolatry you alluded to. Unless you feel I'm missing something.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes, it is relevant Venom. Since Paul is the only verified/identified/validated/authored 'source' for Jesus at all, it would sure add some leverage against the mythicist position.

It does.

You would have a 'Bonafide' source stating he saw or met a living Jesus.

Just because he didn't state he saw or met Jesus, doesn't mean he didn't see or meet Jesus.

You are arguing from silence, which is fallacious.

Now, should you continue to do so, I will simply reply with "Argument from Silence", just as I did with you and your Genetic Fallacies.

So, go ahead and keep it up...as that will be less typing-energy I need to exert.

The mythicist position, (which I do not currently hold BTW), would then likely have to accuse Paul of being a liar about that particular stated detail. In essence, Paul claiming to have seen or met a living Jesus would be another point of 'evidence' for Jesus's actual existence.

The Christian position (which I do currently hold, BTW), would accuse Paul of being a contemporary to Jesus of Nazareth, and who would know whether this Christian movement that he was trying to dispell was based upon a man of whom never existed in the first place.

But we do not have that. Which is why you have no choice but to shrug your shoulders, in the hopes, that maybe he really did and just (never mentioned it; even though this is the exact character he is writing about).

I have no choice but to accusing you of arguing silence, which is one of the many logical fallacies you've been guilty of committing.

No, we don't have Paul saying "Hey, I met Jesus", nor have we argued for it, nor do we need it for our argument.

Then you have not been reading my responses, where I even told you. And, oh yea, you even commented, when you stated, "click bait.'

You are arguing against the existence of Jesus.

That is not an agnostic position.

LOL! You are making up your own wanted version of me Venom. With Jesus, I'm in the 50/50 camp, and I have already explained why ad nauseum.

Nah.

Again, you are arguing against the existence of Jesus.

That is not an agnostic position.

I'm only bringing up the term 'scholar'' because you did so.

Because I'm doing so?

I'm going off scholarship...or is that not what we're supposed to be doing?

In reality, I'm already aware that some "scholars" even take the mythicist position.

Sure..That is a small minority.

As I showed early on, the vast majority of scholars on the subject believe in the historical Jesus of Nazareth...and this includes believers and unbelievers alike.

I'm here to see if any believers can tango with Diffugia's position. I have my popcorn ready, but it keeps getting cold, as I haven't seen any real challenges yet?.?.?.?. Hence, I have to keep reheating it.

I already proved that neither of you are ready.

You clearly are not picking up what I have been continually putting down here Venom. We have a true contemporary author for Caesar, as he claims to have met Caesar. Paul doesn't. Remember Venom, the task is to validate Jesus's existence. Paul, although living at the same time, was likely elsewhere. He never mentions meeting or seeing him while he was alive.

Arguing from silence.

Ahh, first time.

You do not find it odd at all, that Paul omits stating that he meets or sees a Jesus, being this is the person he writes about?.?.?

If I'm writing a book on Donald Trump's presidency, do I necessarily need to mention in the book that I met him at the White House before?

No, I don't.

It just means that I didn't mention it.

Being we are trying to find out if a Jesus really existed, did any of these believers actually know or meet a living Jesus?

To meet a living Jesus, assumes there was a living Jesus to be met.

Is that where you wanna go with this?

Legend.

Legend of what?

lore, oral tradition, inflated tales, superstition, etc... You know, the same reason(s) other proposed possible 'mythical' figures from antiquity remain in question.....

Um, no. The belief was held too early for any of that stuff to happen.

The belief was held immediately after this Jesus figure allegedly died.

Too early for superstition or any of that other mess you mentioned.

So, your basically saying that people concocted a story about Pontius Pilate (a historical figure), sentencing a man who never existed, to death.

Indoctrination, superstition, credulity, legend, lore, oral tradition, etc... Also, see above.

See above.

Did any of these folks ever write back?

Maybe, maybe not.

Nero persecuted any group(s) <and/or> individuals perceived as a threat to his power.

Who cares?

We are talking about his persucution of the Christians, now.

And we do not know the number of any of them? Hence, you have no bases here. I'm not saying no one believed.

I'm saying that the religion took off, after 'Rome' rubberstamped it.

And I'm saying the religion was already popping before the rubberstamp...which it did, and which I proved.

It then moved to the west.

It sure did.

Which is, in part, why YOU are likely a believer. And before you get twitchy again, and cry out 'fallacy', what I'm saying is that you are fighting for a religion in which you certainly would not fight for, had you not been brough up into it.

Um, no. We don't know how our lives would have turned out, had we not been brought up the way that we were.

Too many variables.

You can speculate all you want, but you can't prove anything definitely.

And that is exactly why this is the Genetic Fallacy.

Why? Because the evidence is lacking, when compared to others. I've demonstrated this time and time again with Mormonism alone. And all you do is handwave accordingly, which is your MO.

I addressed this.

[POI]

Just because he didn't state he saw or met Jesus, doesn't mean he didn't see or meet Jesus.

It is widely accepted, among "biblical scholars", that Paul the Apostle never met Jesus during Jesus's earthly lifetime and public ministry. The primary reasons for this conclusion are drawn from both Paul's own writings and the narrative in the Book of Acts. Below are more reasons Paul likely never saw or met a living Jesus:

A) Geographical and Temporal Separation --- While Paul (formerly Saul) and Jesus were "contemporaries", Paul likely lived in Tarsus, Cilicia (modern-day Turkey), which is about 400 miles from Jerusalem, during Jesus's ministry years. The New Testament does not place Paul in Judea during the specific time of Jesus's public life and crucifixion.

B) Paul's Own letter(s) states that he received his Gospel by direct "revelation of Jesus Christ," not from other people who had known Jesus personally. He was an independent apostle, specifically called by the resurrected Christ. He even mentions in Galatians 1:16-19 that after his conversion, he did not immediately consult with the other apostles in Jerusalem, several years later.

The Christian position (which I do currently hold, BTW), would accuse Paul of being a contemporary to Jesus of Nazareth, and who would know whether this Christian movement that he was trying to dispell was based upon a man of whom never existed in the first place.

Yet again, the entire focus of this debate is to establish if a Jesus existed? Many people were alive during this so-called Jesus. However, it would appear that Paul never saw or met him. Which then makes him no different than the millions of other folks who certainly never met him, while being 'contemporaries' -- as they lived at the same time.

I have no choice but to accusing you of arguing silence, which is one of the many logical fallacies you've been guilty of committing.

Venom. I've repeatedly asked you a question. Since Jesus is the focus of his writings, why did Paul never mention seeing or meeting an alive Jesus? I'll answer for you. It's because Paul was hundreds of miles away, when Jesus was alive.

No, we don't have Paul saying "Hey, I met Jesus", nor have we argued for it, nor do we need it for our argument.

We don't have anything remotely close to that because Paul never saw or met a living Jesus -- (see above). If you are insinuating that he might have anyways, the onus is ON YOU to demonstrate how this would have been possible. So far, all you have done is yet another handwave, and also apply another misplaced rubberstamp.

You are arguing against the existence of Jesus.

I was crystal clear in my positions of being 50/50 in posts 154 and 190. Please stop misrepresenting me.

I'm going off scholarship...or is that not what we're supposed to be doing?

Great. Then scholarship states Paul never saw or met a living Jesus. Hence, Paul cannot logically be used to support the claim of a living Jesus.

Aside from the claim(s) from the untrustworthy Gospels, how do we know a Jesus really existed?

Sure..That is a small minority.

An even more minority scholarly position is that Paul actually saw or met a living Jesus.

As I showed early on, the vast majority of scholars on the subject believe in the historical Jesus of Nazareth...and this includes believers and unbelievers alike.

This is you, again, having your cake and eating it too. You cannot appeal to scholarly consensus only when it suits you. This is my point Venom. Pick a lane and stay in it. If you want to appeal to scholarly consensus, then I can end Christianity really fast.

I already proved that neither of you are ready.

Then I continue to drive home my prior statement, in that your completely misplaced confidence continues to astound me.

Arguing from silence. Ahh, first time.

More misplaced rubberstamping. Someone from Caesar's army, who fought with him, wrote about him. Paul, on the other hand, was nowhere near a living Jesus.

If I'm writing a book on Donald Trump's presidency, do I necessarily need to mention in the book that I met him at the White House before? No, I don't. It just means that I didn't mention it.

If you were writing about the most important figure in human history, would you omit ever seeing or meeting him out and about (anywhere)? You wouldn't have a signed autograph of him, other?

To meet a living Jesus, assumes there was a living Jesus to be met. Is that where you wanna go with this?

That's not where I'm trying to go with this. I'm going after the obvious special pleading to come... If we want to verify the existence of someone from ancient antiquity, and we LACK almost all other needed credentials, when applying the historical method, as I expressed in post 154, then hearsay and secondhand accounts alone suffice here?.?.?.? Remember, we both agree there is clearly more evidence for Caesar's existence than with Jesus.

Um, no. The belief was held too early for any of that stuff to happen.

Hahaha! then I guess postmortem Elvis sightings are also legit?

So, your basically saying that people concocted a story about Pontius Pilate (a historical figure), sentencing a man who never existed, to death.

No Venom. These claims originate from the Gospels, and the Gospels are wacked. You can start by comparing Mark to Luke. For which I then asked, how many irreconcilable inconsistencies must one encounter before you just chuck the 'source(s)'? One, five, ten, more?

Maybe, maybe not.

This means they likely didn't. Which is another point of failure, or an excuse-to-come, for the Chrisriani apologetic's side

Who cares? We are talking about his persucution of the Christians, now.

Another handwave.... Nero persecuted any deemed threat, big or small. And the 'threat' from Christianity was not specified in size.

And I'm saying the religion was already popping before the rubberstamp...which it did, and which I proved.

You have no basis to state it was 'popping' when we don't even have any definitive number(s) to verify.

It sure did.

Yes, it did. My point here is that you would be badly arguing for any illogical religion for which you were indoctrinated within. If it was Hinduism, you've likely be a Hindu right now. Maybe just a slightly different flavor from your parents.... You see Venom, all religions have their crappy apologetics. Where I live, I have the pleasure of arguing against the bad apologetics of Christians. If I instead lived in India, it would be different.

I addressed this.

'Addressed' ='s 'replied very poorly.'

[OneJack]

What would you say to people that haven't made an idol out of the Bible

If the idols are graven images, those people are not idolaters of such idols. However, they are practicing bibliolatry, similar to the idolatry of graven images, when they worship God through the bible. A clean heart, not the bible, is essential in worshipping God.

I acknowledge your worship/reverence/idolization/love or whatever word we might use for the Bible.

Do I have ‘worship/reverence/idolization/love’ per se for the Bible that you’ve seen in my quote above?

That is why I asked about what you would say to people that don't share in this idolization.

I answered your question through the use of an ‘If’ clause, where I said they are not idolaters of such idols if graven images are the object of worship. Then I followed up by further saying they are practicing bibliolatry when they worship God through the bible, which is a similar idolatrous sin as the idol of graven images. What am I saying then? People who do not share in this idolization are not idolaters or users of such idols - graven images, bible, etc. That’s all I can say, unless you specify your subject matter in detail.

Imagine you were talking to a Muslim and said that Jesus is real because of the Bible.

Now that you name a specific group, the tone of our conversation will shift to another group of religious movements. If I were talking to a Muslim, I would not use the bible and the name Jesus to my defense, but the Almighty God alone, and I’m sure that would put us both on the same train to the point of no return.

Obviously, they wouldn't share in the worship/reverence/idolization/love (whatever they would call it) of the Bible, so using the Bible as justification wouldn't mean much.

Neither would I do that, Clownboat! Seems you missed my point.

Therefore I asked, "what would you say to people that haven't made an idol out of the Bible."

I answered this generically, unless you name a particular group.

Surely you understand that saying, "the Bible says this or that" would be very unimpressive to such a person, so what would you say to them, or is idolization of the book really the first requirement?

i·dol·ize
/ˈīdəˌlīz/
verb
gerund or present participle: idolizing
admire, revere, or love greatly or excessively.

I am of the same train with the people who find the phrases ‘the bible says this or that’ unimpressive because nothing matters most to me but the Almighty God.

and what would you think the Christian god concept would think about such idolization of a man made object?

God, who is omnipotent and transcendent, can't be reduced to a physical object or a book. Anyone who worships God through graven images commits idolatry against Him.

I didn't say that the god concept of the Bible IS the Bible

Neither do I! The bible is not God, btw!

though. I asked what you thought this god concept would think about people that seemingly idolize/worship this man made object.

Why not ask rather, what would the Almighty God think about people who idolized Him through man-made object?

It sounds like that would be idolatry against Him.

No doubt about that!

Therefore, be careful what you make of this book, written by humans or you just might be guilty of the idolatry you alluded to. Unless you feel I'm missing something.

I’m sure you’ve misread my post!

[SiNcE_1985]

Um, no. The singularity itself (initial conditions) had to be fine tuned. That's what he's saying.

Yes, but it's not the classical fine tuning discussion in physics. That's exactly the distinction he's pointing out. Fine tuning is a discussion about properties of the universe after the Big Bang, like the relative strengths and weaknesses of particular forces. Penrose is saying that physicists worried about the fine tuning discussion are missing what he considers a larger problem, the low entropy conditions allowing the Big Bang itself.

Yeah, a larger problem for your side of things.

I'm not about to waste time explaining this^ or asking why you believe what Penrose said, somehow supports whatever it is you believe.

I truly believe you're trolling and I'll keep my responses short until I think you're taking this seriously.

Penrose proposes a mechanism that doesn't require a magic person. That's what his followup book is about. Something, something, taxicab fallacy.

Yeah, and he has to posit infinite time to do so, which is fallacious...and there is no evidence behind any of it.

It is all theoretical, all speculation...and all fallacious.

As good as these scientists are, they don't make good philosophers.

OK. I was wrong about what I said about the Penrose equation. What's your excuse now?

We can move on. Thank you, and I'm impressed.

Are you sure this isn't one of those, "every accusation is a confession" things?

I'm sure.

You mean the mythical Jesus topic that the rest of us were talking about until I sniped at you a bit? It doesn't actually matter. We have the same discussion with you over and over, regardless of the topic. You pick someone that you think owns the atheists. You tell us what you think their claims mean, but you're invariably wrong.

?

Hovind, Craig, Feduccia, Ehrman, and now Penrose all said things that someone, somewhere thinks have value to Christian apologists. You toss the names at us along with a claim that you think is vague enough that it can't possibly be wrong, but somehow it still is. When we push you, you claim you've won. I can only assume that every debate looks like this to you, you think everyone is bluffing, and you assume that nobody debates in good faith ever.

I have no clue what you're talking about, bruh.

Tell you what. Pick your favorite champion and explain what their argument actually is with enough detail that we can discuss it. I don't care what topic you pick, just explain it. Ehrman? Tell us what he thinks we can know about a historical Jesus and why he thinks the historical data lead us there. Penrose? What conditions are improbable to one part in 10¹⁰¹²³? Why is that necessary for the universe to be as it is? How does that relate to what other physicists refer to as a finely-tuned universe?

Give us a discussion about anything that's more than somebody else's name. I dare you!

Sorry, Charlie.

Although we went off key on the piano, this tune is all about Jesus.