Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?

[StuartJ]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 8 by Tart]

Please do present your evidence ...

After re-reading my second paragraph.

[Tart]

your first sentence in the quote above is just flat out wrong...We dont only have sources from non-Christians (like historians, pagans, and others), but every source we have from antiquity tells us Jesus really existed. There isnt a single source that implies Jesus never existed... All the evidence is one sided in this debate... If you'd like id be happy to share sources from antiquity...

"... the beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France..."

Actually, the New Testament attests to some people at that time questioning the existence of Jesus. Consider 2 Peter 1:16:

What you have quoted is a source supporting the existence of Christ, by a person claiming to be an eyewitness... Do you have any source that doesnt support Christ existence? One that suggest he is fictional?

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So some people, probably Christians, were questioning "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" which in Greek is τὴν τοῦ Κυ�ίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ δ�ναμιν καὶ πα�ουσίαν. The Greek word translated "coming," πα�ουσίαν, in addition to "a coming"can mean "a presence." So the writer of 2 Peter needed to defend the reality of the very presence of Christ.

How do you know that? Do you have any source questioning Christs existence?

"The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines."

I really don't care if an idea is on "the fringe." What matters to me is whether it's true.

Is there any good reasons that we should disregard every source we have from ancient times and conclude Christ is a myth?

I wouldn't say we should disregard every source of information about Christ, of course, but I've never seen a source that isn't very questionable not the least of which are the canonical gospels.

What do you mean by questionable? The claim Christianity makes is that the Gospels were a result of eyewitnesses. I think there is a very strong case the Gospels are historically valid, which if you'd like we can dive into that case...

If so, can anyone give a reasonable explanation why everyone thought Jesus was real, who lived in, or close to, his time period (the first century onward)?

Like I demonstrated above, there were doubters about the historicity of Jesus from the very inception of Christianity. Many who did believe in him then, like believers today, may have been simply credulous. After all, many people then believed Zeus was real. Was Zeus historical?

You didnt give any source to support your claim, that people didnt believe Jesus existed... You actually gave a source supporting the claim that witnesses literally knew Jesus... How did you come to the conclusion people didnt believe Jesus existed?


Also, im not sure if people literally believed in Zeus... As far as i know, the Greeks believed that these things were mythologies... Where they had words designating such thing, "mythos" is the Greek word for myths... How do you know the Greek literally believed Zeus was historical?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 8 by Tart]

Please do present your evidence ...

After re-reading my second paragraph.

Great (although i never seen any paragraph you wrote, only a few sentences)... But lets get into the evidence...

For now, I will leave out the extra-biblical sources, while there are many of them and as i said before, I havent found a single source from antiquity supporting Jesus as myth or fictional, and in fact scholars agree there is no sources from antiquity that suggest Jesus didnt exist... I mean we even have sources that were extremely anti-Christianity, from various Romans, that laid out cases in entire books of why they didnt believe in Christianity, and they all confess and suggest Jesus really existed... However, for now let look at our best evidence, the Bible itself and its reliability, where these stories originated...

Lets start with what everyone agrees on.. As far as we know, everyone agrees to certain things, like Paul existing, and Paul writing much of the New testament, with his ltters (Epistles)... Im not sure if you know of Dr. Carrier, or Dr. Price, but the biggest critics of a historical Jesus all confess these things, that Paul existed, and that Paul wrote His Epistles attributed to him.. And we even have archaeological evidence supporting Paul.. Like we have archaeological evidence supporting Paul and his trials and the Book of Acts... Everyone agrees... (also as far as iv seen, the biggest critics dont even contest suggesting Paul having ill intentions, or alternative motives, we have much evidence supporting that Paul having genuine beliefs)

Well we also have Paul mentioning the Disciples. Paul literally talks about knowing Peter, Paul talks about knowing John and James, Paul mentions Luke and Mark... We also have letters who name James, John, Peter as authors.. The evidence supports these people really existed... And these people are the same as the people in the Book of Acts, and consequently the Gospels... Like for example, when Paul mentions Peter, he says:

"I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised." (Galatians 2:7)

It is clear Paul is talking about the same Peter in the Book of Acts, and consequently the same Peter in the Gospels... Likewise the same Peter who is attributed to writing His own epistles which as included in the scripture, that says he literally knew Jesus...

So we have evidence supporting the existence of the same people who walked with, talked with, and literally knew Jesus, and wrote letters testifying so... We also have evidence in these letters that mention Jesus, that mention his crucifixion (from multitudes of sources, biblical and non-biblical ), they mention his trial by Pontius Pilate (both biblical and non-biblical sources), they is mentions of other Gospel events, like the transfiguration, the resurrection (biblical and non-biblical), the family of Jesus, his brother James (both biblical and non-biblical sources).

Then we can get into the Gospels, and the Book of Act's themselves... What we know about these books is that they are riddled with verifiable historical evidence... As far as we know, all the people are historical in these books. We have Emperors, Governess, Head priest, Jewish Leaders, Kings that are all verified as historical people. Like, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod tetrarch, Herod the Great, Lysanias, the High Priests Annas and Caiaphas, Nicodemus, etc... All these men are in the Gospels, and many of them are being said to have physically been in the presence of Jesus, and talking with Jesus.. Likewise we have mentions of historical groups of people, the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the Samaritans, who are dipicted as having actually been in the presence with, and had talked to Jesus himself.. We have no evidence of any of these people or groups of people, having objections to those claims. Also the historically supported Disciples (i mentioned above), Peter, John, James the brother of Jesus, are all in the Gospels... Everything we can verify is historical... All the places mentioned in the Gospels are real places, and many of the events in the Gospels has other supporting evidence as well. Like the ruling of these emperors, and kings, Jewish leader and head priest. The crucifixion of Jesus is talked in tons of sources, both biblical and non biblical, as well as the resurrection and trial of Jesus (both biblical and non-biblical sources)..

I mean, how would we even begin to dissociate Jesus from the magnitude of evidence, and make sense he is fictional? I mean, what other fictional stories, if any, has this kind of evidence in them, but turns out is based on fiction?

And then we go into the Book of Acts, which is the story of the first disciples, after deaths death/resurrection of Christ, and the first churches. We have archaeological evidence that supports some of the trials the first disciples were in. Likewise the people like, Paul, Peter, John, James, Stephan, all mentioned in the Book of Acts, and also having etra-biblical sources mentioning the death of many of these men, the martyrdom... And the church then continued to spread, from the first century onward, to real histocial people who knew the first Disciples, who knew Jesus... Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Scillitan Martyrs, Perpetua and Felicity, Ptolemaeus and Lucius, Pothinus, bishop of Lyon, Pope Fabian, Saint Sebastian, etc... All of which are support to having existed historically and knowing the first Disciples.

I mean, how would we even begin to make sense out of Christianity being mythological? There are mountains of evidence in favor of Christianity, with its historicity....

How would any of you make sense of the evidence, while supporting that notion that Jesus didnt exist? I dont even know how it would be possible to support such an idea.. Do you?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 13 by Tart]

You have quoted the cult propaganda.

The subject of my third paragraph.

(Paragraphs can be a single sentence. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and- ... aragraphs/ )

You have not presented either a jot or a tittle of independently verifiable evidence.

I'm not saying that the Jesus character WAS fictional.

I AM saying that given the absence of independently verifiable evidence for the existence of a real Jesus, it's possible that he was no more than a fictional character in Jewish political propaganda.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 13 by Tart]

You have quoted the cult propaganda.

The subject of my third paragraph.

(Paragraphs can be a single sentence. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and- ... aragraphs/ )

You have not presented either a jot or a tittle of independently verifiable evidence.

I'm not saying that the Jesus character WAS fictional.

I AM saying that given the absence of independently verifiable evidence for the existence of a real Jesus, it's possible that he was no more than a fictional character in Jewish political propaganda.

So you have no problems with the evidence i presented... Just that you want more evidence?

[dio9]

[Replying to StuartJ]

oh there was a Jesus and he was crucified for claiming to be the Messiah, Romans crucified other Messiah claimants and their followers disbursed after their Messiah's execution.
Jesus' followers didn't disburse but continued his mission of the kingdom which should be taken into consideration. They said he rose again. What kind of kingdom was he talking about and what kind of kingdom did his followers believe in?
If there is any question of veracity as to this it is, what is resurrection? That Jesus lived and died isn't hard to believe, but what his resurrection means is?

[dio9]

[Replying to dio9]

Is the resurrected Jesus real? well yes he is , resurrected Jesus lives in the minds and hearts of believers. Resurrected Jesus lives in Christianity.

[Jagella]

Do you have any source questioning Christs existence?

I don't have anything that explicitly questions the existence of Jesus, but as I have pointed out, 2 Peter 1:16 demonstrates that at that time some people were skeptical about his existence. The author of 2 Peter obviously needed to "set the skeptics straight" by denying the creation of Jesus to them.

I wouldn't say we should disregard every source of information about Christ, of course, but I've never seen a source that isn't very questionable not the least of which are the canonical gospels.

What do you mean by questionable? The claim Christianity makes is that the Gospels were a result of eyewitnesses.

All the sources that I'm acquainted with regarding Jesus look to me like fiction rather than fact. The stories about him are almost without exception outlandish.

And if you wish to believe eyewitness testimony, then you need to believe in ETs visiting the earth and Bigfoot. There's plenty evidence for them!

How did you come to the conclusion people didnt believe Jesus existed?

In addition to 2 Peter 1:16, I think it's likely that many people saw Jesus as just another god like Isis. So for them Jesus only existed in myth.

[Jagella]

I'm not saying that the Jesus character WAS fictional.

I AM saying that given the absence of independently verifiable evidence for the existence of a real Jesus, it's possible that he was no more than a fictional character in Jewish political propaganda.

That's my position exactly. I think Bible scholars are misleading people when they insist that Jesus was historical. The evidence is way to weak to be so sure he existed.

[Tart]

Hi Jagella

Do you have any source questioning Christs existence?

I don't have anything that explicitly questions the existence of Jesus, but as I have pointed out, 2 Peter 1:16 demonstrates that at that time some people were skeptical about his existence. The author of 2 Peter obviously needed to "set the skeptics straight" by denying the creation of Jesus to them.

Yes i get you are making the link that this quote from peter was a response to people not believing Jesus existed... But that seems like a far leap to make..

How would we know this isnt just simply stated by Peter, and not a response to anyone? Just that in his own reasoning, he chose to be clear about it in this way?

Or lets say it is in response to skeptics (which i dont think is conclusive but for the sake of argument), Peter is specifically saying that he heard a voice from Heaven saying "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.�... He specifically comments on this as the subject, and that he was witness of this and heard it... How would you know he isnt responding to cirtism that Jesus was really the Son of God?

Actually, i think this quote would much more probably be about Jesus as the Son of God, rater then Jesus existing at all, becuase that is what its commenting on, and theres no evidence hes commenting on Jesus existing at all.

That and that coupled with the fact that we have absolutely no evidence of anyone questioning Jesus's existence... I just dont think that a reasonable conclusion...

You dont think that was in response to Jesus claimed as the "Son of God"? Why not?

I wouldn't say we should disregard every source of information about Christ, of course, but I've never seen a source that isn't very questionable not the least of which are the canonical gospels.

What do you mean by questionable? The claim Christianity makes is that the Gospels were a result of eyewitnesses.

All the sources that I'm acquainted with regarding Jesus look to me like fiction rather than fact. The stories about him are almost without exception outlandish.

Ya, that is because he is claimed to be the Son of God... Which if true, then there needs to be extraordinary evidence..

And if you wish to believe eyewitness testimony, then you need to believe in ETs visiting the earth and Bigfoot. There's plenty evidence for them!

Nono, every person on the face of the earth believes in some eyewitness testimony, and disbelieves other eye witness testimony... We all take them on case by case basis, believing some and not others.

In addition to 2 Peter 1:16, I think it's likely that many people saw Jesus as just another god like Isis. So for them Jesus only existed in myth.

If you believe that Jesus was seen as just any other god, just another myth, or fictional story.. Im still trying to get someone to make sense of that claim...

Given my response in post 13, is there any other god/myth, or any other fictional story at that, that has this magnitude of historical evidence in its favor, that actually turned out being fictional?

I cant even think of another example of a person, that has this magnitude of historical evidence, yet ended up being fictional...

Is there anyone we can compare to Jesus in this way?

I'm not saying that the Jesus character WAS fictional.

I AM saying that given the absence of independently verifiable evidence for the existence of a real Jesus, it's possible that he was no more than a fictional character in Jewish political propaganda.

That's my position exactly. I think Bible scholars are misleading people when they insist that Jesus was historical. The evidence is way to weak to be so sure he existed.

In response to my post # 13.. Do you disagree with any of the evidence i mentioned? If not, do you still believe that the evidence supporting a historical Jesus is "to [too] weak to be sure he existed'?

When studying the evidence, i wouldnt know how to even begin to make sense of the evidence from a fictional Jesus point of view... Can you?