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.
Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Post #21I see right off the bat you have no solid evidence for Jesus like his tomb, his house, or anything he might have written. All the evidence for him is documentary, so if he really existed, then none of his followers bothered to preserve the knowledge of these places which seems suspicious to me considering the volumes they bothered to write about him to convince people he was real. Didn't they understand that solid evidence tends to trump writings when it comes to making a case for a person's reality?Tart wrote: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?
So I'd need to judge this evidence as ambiguous. If Jesus existed, then it's at least possible that he never wrote anything and that his followers never bothered to preserve knowledge of the sites of the events of his life. On the other hand, he could have easily been a fabrication which would explain why he like other made-up people only exists on paper. A piece of paper, after all, will stand as still for fiction as it will for history.
Re: Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Post #22Well the Catholic Church indeed does claim to have physical evidence of Jesus, and in favor of Christianity... Despite the fact that the Romans tried to abolish Christianity, we have evidence they paved over the tomb of Christ. But upon accepting Christianity by Constantine, they claimed to have found many things, like a peace of the cross, they identified Peter's tomb, and Paul's tomb, they claim to have Paul's chains he was shackled with.. They claimed to have identified the Tomb of Jesus, and where he was crucified...Jagella wrote:I see right off the bat you have no solid evidence for Jesus like his tomb, his house, or anything he might have written. All the evidence for him is documentary, so if he really existed, then none of his followers bothered to preserve the knowledge of these places which seems suspicious to me considering the volumes they bothered to write about him to convince people he was real. Didn't they understand that solid evidence tends to trump writings when it comes to making a case for a person's reality?Tart wrote: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?
Well Jesus didnt need to write a single word to have existed... But i think certainly the followers did try to preserve things in Christianity even when facing intense persecution. Where, we have solid evidence of Rome trying to eradicate the evidence of Christianity, like when they paved over the Tomb of Christ, and built a temple on the site where he was crucified....Jagella wrote: So I'd need to judge this evidence as ambiguous. If Jesus existed, then it's at least possible that he never wrote anything and that his followers never bothered to preserve knowledge of the sites of the events of his life. On the other hand, he could have easily been a fabrication which would explain why he like other made-up people only exists on paper. A piece of paper, after all, will stand as still for fiction as it will for history.
But lets leave that aside, do you have any objections to the evidence i spoke of in Post # 13? I am really trying to get a solid answer for this.. How do you make sense out of that evidence, and somehow support Jesus didnt exist? Like we have dozens of people who are said to have talked with and been in the presence of Jesus Christ, who historically actually existed.. And we even have many of them flat out saying so, and none of them objecting..
Can you compare anyone in history with this kind of evidence around them (post #13), that was actually fictional>?
Post #23
Also, just pondering the subject, you'd be surprised on what we have lost to history.. I went to study abroad in Italy this summer, and it is shocking to learn how little we know about Ancient Rome.. People lived in Rome for thousands of years, and we basically just started excavating these sites, and historically identifying them in like the 1750's... It was kind of crazy learning how people lived in, and all around, these mountains of ruins, and they had no idea what the Romans used those building for, or what their identity was... And this is like the Roman Empire, in contrast to a man with just a few dozen followers...
Re: I'm just not convinced that he existed.
Post #24I don't see why the writer of 2 Peter 1:16 would bother to deny that the story of Jesus was "cleverly devised myths" unless somebody was saying it was. You think he just spontaneously decided to say the gospel wasn't a myth?Tart wrote: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?
We don't know for sure why the writer of 2 Peter denied the gospel being composed of myths, but I already explained that he specifically denied the very presence of Christ being a myth which could be in addition to accusations that the magical nature of Christ was a myth.How would you know he isnt responding to cirtism that Jesus was really the Son of God?
If we look at the context, the claim that Jesus is the son of the Bible god is made, so that claim is probably being defended as well as his very presence (his "coming"). So more than one claim appears to be defended in 2 Peter.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...
This argument admittedly may not be the strongest, but it's very possible that any direct evidence of people questioning the existence of Jesus may have been lost or destroyed by the early church. The church had possession of the documents that comprise the New Testament, so they could have altered or destroyed those documents as they saw fit.That and that coupled with the fact that we have absolutely no evidence of anyone questioning Jesus's existence...
In any case, it should not be too surprising that nobody bothered to deny directly the existence of Jesus. There were many gods and many religions in the Roman Empire, and as far as I know nobody denied the existence of any of those gods either.
Based on my own study of the New Testament, Jesus was by no means seen as a mere man. He was a divine or quasi-divine being sent from the Bible god's realm in the sky to the earth. He spent some time here on earth performing magic, and then he returned to the sky. As such he was much like Zeus who also visited the earth from Mount Olympus, interacted with people, and then returned to his supernatural realm.Ya, that is because he is claimed to be the Son of God... Which if true, then there needs to be extraordinary evidence..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.
The difference, of course, is that many of us insist Jesus was historical while Zeus is dismissed as a myth.
Right! So why insist that eyewitness testimony is good evidence for Jesus?...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.
Sure. In addition to Zeus other figures like Heracles (Hercules) were widely believed in and written about. As their religion waned in acceptance, their historicity was lost as well. It appears that the same is happening to Jesus; as Christianity loses its followers, the historicity of Jesus is being questioned and doubted like never before.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?
So I think that the historicity of Jesus is based more in the popularity of modern-day liberal Christianity than on any sound historical evidence.
Re: Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Post #25Yes - that's the kicker !Jagella wrote: All the evidence for him is documentary,
The foundation of Christianity is the documents of the NT.
Those documents were copied and passed around and spread to various early communities - but their origins were lost.
Christianity is not founded on any history, because there is none - there is no historical evidence for Jesus, nor any of the Christian characters in the gospels. None of the claimed evidence (Josephus etc.) stands up to scrutiny.
Christianity grew entirely from books.
Books whose authors and origins are essentially unknown.
Even Paul is unknown outside of his writings, we have no idea who he was in history. Only seven of his letters are considered authentic, and even they have been chopped and re-arranged.
None of the other NT books were written by the person whose name they now bear - so says modern scholarship.
Yes, some persons named Peter, and James, and John almost certainly existed, and were part of the early movement.
But no, none of those characters in the gospel stories wrote the books which now carry their names. Peter, Jude, James, John, Matthew - all pseudographs (*cough* forgeries *cough*).
It's quite clear now that all the Gospels (and later works) depend on the seminal Gospel of Mark for all the alleged historical details about Jesus of Nazareth. The synoptics copy whole slabs word-for-word, while G. of John follows the themes but adds his own imaginings.
What's just becoming clear now is that the entirety of the Gospel of Mark is a literary creation. It's religious literature, directly based on persons, themes and terms found in the Jewish scriptures.
Critically, something R.G. Price has just made more clear, is that the Gospel of Mark is based also on the writings of Paul -
* Mark's Jesus mimics Paul
* the teachings in Mark echo the teachings of Paul
* the key characters' names in the G. of Mark come from Paul - James, John, Peter
(The author also casts the story in ways which echo Homer - because everyone who was educated back then had read Homer. Genius)
But the whole cloth from which the author of Mark created his literary masterpiece was the Tanakh - the Jewish scriptures. He made it fairly obvious, but alas - not obvious enough - and the story became mis-understood as history.
Price has a great table showing how the gospel stories depend on the Jewish scriptures, I think I'll post that, it's quite instructive and persuasive.
Because it shows how all the elements of the Jesus of Nazareth story can be seen to have originated in the Jewish scriptures.
In contrast to how apologists can not show the origins lie in any solid historical evidence.
Jubal
Re: Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Post #26I was going to mention Paul too. I'm totally sure he existed, but I'm that sure if I understand him as some person who wrote some of the epistles. Obviously, somebody wrote Romans, and I call that person "Paul." Aside from that, we know almost nothing about him like you say. His story is very fishy because it seems very implausible in many ways. The "road to Damascus" story is for believers only. Even the "natural" aspects of his life's story seem implausible; did the Romans just sit back while he and a gang of armed thugs raided towns and cities in Judea dragging off Christians to prison? I find that very unlikely.Jubal wrote:Even Paul is unknown outside of his writings, we have no idea who he was in history. Only seven of his letters are considered authentic, and even they have been chopped and re-arranged.
So to try to explain Jesus as historical based on such shaky evidence is to try to explain an unknown with an unknown.
We have a myth on our hands!
Re: I'm just not convinced that he existed.
Post #27Yes certainly this is a possibility...Peter could have known these claims are extraordinary, and simply decided to make it clear that these were not myths... But conclusively we couldn't say for sure, whether it was in the face of criticism or on his own accord, the evidence isnt specific enough. However, we have no evidence this was about Jesus physically existing, and we have evidence in favor that this was about extraordinary claims. If you read the entire passage (not just the single verse you are quoting), Peter specifically points out that he heard a voice from Heaven saying Jesus is His Son... Its probable that this comment about not being myths, is about the extraordinary claims in the Gospels... And coupled with that, we have absolutely nobody contesting against Jesus's existence....Jagella wrote:I don't see why the writer of 2 Peter 1:16 would bother to deny that the story of Jesus was "cleverly devised myths" unless somebody was saying it was. You think he just spontaneously decided to say the gospel wasn't a myth?Tart wrote: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?
How would you prove to someone that it is more probable that Peter is talking about Jesus's existence, and not about the Extraordinary claim that He is the Son of God?
How would you prove that (1) he was responding to criticism (2) that criticism was about Jesus existing at all (3) that it wasnt about the extraordinary claims of Jesus? I mean Jesus existing isnt an extraordinary claim, but God saying He is His Son, is an extraordinary claim...Jagella wrote:We don't know for sure why the writer of 2 Peter denied the gospel being composed of myths, but I already explained that he specifically denied the very presence of Christ being a myth which could be in addition to accusations that the magical nature of Christ was a myth.How would you know he isnt responding to cirtism that Jesus was really the Son of God?
How would you prove your conclusion is more probable... Becuase from all the evidence we have, it seems to me that it is more probable that this isnt about Jesus existing.
But you dont have any other evidence at all that anyone contested Jesus's existence. And we cant even conclusively say Peter was responding to criticism at all, or say that he was talking about Jesus's existence...Jagella wrote:If we look at the context, the claim that Jesus is the son of the Bible god is made, so that claim is probably being defended as well as his very presence (his "coming"). So more than one claim appears to be defended in 2 Peter.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...
Can you prove that to me? I mean, i simply see no reason to assume your conclusion... I dont even see good reason to take it seriously, that this is conclusive evidence that people didnt believe Jesus existed...
Can you prove that?
Ok, well we shouldnt believe in anything that isnt supported by evidence. That is like a motto for atheism.. I always find it ironic that atheism claims to live by this kind of motto, but then will believe any kind of speculation of the imagination on why they think Christianity is false, and/or not historical.Jagella wrote:This argument admittedly may not be the strongest, but it's very possible that any direct evidence of people questioning the existence of Jesus may have been lost or destroyed by the early church. The church had possession of the documents that comprise the New Testament, so they could have altered or destroyed those documents as they saw fit.That and that coupled with the fact that we have absolutely no evidence of anyone questioning Jesus's existence...
You yourself are arguing that the lack of physical evidence of Jesus is evidence he never existed, but then conclude the lack of evidence that questions Jesus's existence might just be because it was lost to time... You dont find yourself in a bias position agianst Christianity?
And more so, do you have any evidence backing your assertions that the church got rid of documents that question Jesus existence? We have other documents from Romans that lay out entire books of why they dont believe in Christianity, and none of them question Christs existence... Why wouldnt the church likewise get rid of any of these documents?
Well i have yet to see any conclusive evidence that people believed that say, Greek mythology and their gods, were historical people... You guys should rely try to support your assumptions with evidence and not on what your imagination thinks up...Jagella wrote: In any case, it should not be too surprising that nobody bothered to deny directly the existence of Jesus. There were many gods and many religions in the Roman Empire, and as far as I know nobody denied the existence of any of those gods either.
Given post # 13, can you compare anyone in history, any myth of fictional person, to this amount of historical evidence? And/or do you disagree with anything mentioned in post # 13?Jagella wrote:Based on my own study of the New Testament, Jesus was by no means seen as a mere man. He was a divine or quasi-divine being sent from the Bible god's realm in the sky to the earth. He spent some time here on earth performing magic, and then he returned to the sky. As such he was much like Zeus who also visited the earth from Mount Olympus, interacted with people, and then returned to his supernatural realm.Ya, that is because he is claimed to be the Son of God... Which if true, then there needs to be extraordinary evidence..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.
The difference, of course, is that many of us insist Jesus was historical while Zeus is dismissed as a myth.
Because we believe it is true eyewitness testimony... Actually, we can get into the specifics of why it is true, but here is the challenge that i debate atheists about... Because if you dont believe it, and its not based on a real God, All Powerful, All Knowing, then there needs to be some concise coherent answer that can make sense of Christian from a position of it being false... We dont get these kinds of answers from nonbelievers, all we get is them doubting the evidence, on nothing more then speculation. And its not even consistent doubts, often they dont even support themselves... Like for example, at one moment they will say that one prophecy isnt true becuase it is too broad, then the next moment another specific prophecy isnt true becuase it is self-fulfilling. Then they say the next prophecy isnt true becuase it hasnt fully happened yet, and the next one isnt true because it already happened and could have been fulfilled before it was prophesied about...Jagella wrote:Right! So why insist that eyewitness testimony is good evidence for Jesus?...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.
This is just one example... We never get a coherent comprehensive answer that makes sense out of the evidence from non-belief.. And in this debate that is what we need from you.
Because personally, i think it is clear that the evidence makes sense, like pieces of a puzzle falling into place. With God, we have a coherent answer that makes sense out of the entire picture of the evidence. As far as im concerned, the evidence shows Jesus existed, that he caim showing many signs, in fulfillment of prophecy and the Messiah. He fulfilled Gods destiny, and the law. He was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins according to the will of God, and was resurrected as testified by the witnesses, who showed genuin athentic beliefs, and died for not renouncing those beliefs...
I think this isnt only the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, but its the only reasonable explanation.
Jagella wrote:Sure. In addition to Zeus other figures like Heracles (Hercules) were widely believed in and written about. As their religion waned in acceptance, their historicity was lost as well. It appears that the same is happening to Jesus; as Christianity loses its followers, the historicity of Jesus is being questioned and doubted like never before.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?
So I think that the historicity of Jesus is based more in the popularity of modern-day liberal Christianity than on any sound historical evidence.
Do you have any criticism of post 13? Because this is talking about the historical evidence of Christianity, which you are now claiming there is no sound historical evidence..
Do you think the evidence talked about its sound? Or is inefficient?
And i see you are comparing Jesus to Zues and Hercules... Can you show the historical evidence in favor of these myths, that is the least comparable to post #13?
Re: Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Post #28Jubal wrote:Yes - that's the kicker !Jagella wrote: All the evidence for him is documentary,
The foundation of Christianity is the documents of the NT.
Those documents were copied and passed around and spread to various early communities - but their origins were lost.
Christianity is not founded on any history, because there is none - there is no historical evidence for Jesus, nor any of the Christian characters in the gospels. None of the claimed evidence (Josephus etc.) stands up to scrutiny.
Christianity grew entirely from books.
Books whose authors and origins are essentially unknown.
Even Paul is unknown outside of his writings, we have no idea who he was in history. Only seven of his letters are considered authentic, and even they have been chopped and re-arranged.
None of the other NT books were written by the person whose name they now bear - so says modern scholarship.
Yes, some persons named Peter, and James, and John almost certainly existed, and were part of the early movement.
But no, none of those characters in the gospel stories wrote the books which now carry their names. Peter, Jude, James, John, Matthew - all pseudographs (*cough* forgeries *cough*).
It's quite clear now that all the Gospels (and later works) depend on the seminal Gospel of Mark for all the alleged historical details about Jesus of Nazareth. The synoptics copy whole slabs word-for-word, while G. of John follows the themes but adds his own imaginings.
What's just becoming clear now is that the entirety of the Gospel of Mark is a literary creation. It's religious literature, directly based on persons, themes and terms found in the Jewish scriptures.
Critically, something R.G. Price has just made more clear, is that the Gospel of Mark is based also on the writings of Paul -
* Mark's Jesus mimics Paul
* the teachings in Mark echo the teachings of Paul
* the key characters' names in the G. of Mark come from Paul - James, John, Peter
(The author also casts the story in ways which echo Homer - because everyone who was educated back then had read Homer. Genius)
But the whole cloth from which the author of Mark created his literary masterpiece was the Tanakh - the Jewish scriptures. He made it fairly obvious, but alas - not obvious enough - and the story became mis-understood as history.
Price has a great table showing how the gospel stories depend on the Jewish scriptures, I think I'll post that, it's quite instructive and persuasive.
Because it shows how all the elements of the Jesus of Nazareth story can be seen to have originated in the Jewish scriptures.
In contrast to how apologists can not show the origins lie in any solid historical evidence.
Jubal
You guys continue to claim there is no historical evidence for the Gospels, but im still; waiting on any response that can raise any doubt to the historical evidence talked about in post #13... So far no one have even responded to it, yet you guys keep on insisting there is no historical evidence...
Does anyone have any objections to anything in post # 13?
Re: Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Post #29Jagella wrote:I was going to mention Paul too. I'm totally sure he existed, but I'm that sure if I understand him as some person who wrote some of the epistles. Obviously, somebody wrote Romans, and I call that person "Paul." Aside from that, we know almost nothing about him like you say. His story is very fishy because it seems very implausible in many ways. The "road to Damascus" story is for believers only. Even the "natural" aspects of his life's story seem implausible; did the Romans just sit back while he and a gang of armed thugs raided towns and cities in Judea dragging off Christians to prison? I find that very unlikely.Jubal wrote:Even Paul is unknown outside of his writings, we have no idea who he was in history. Only seven of his letters are considered authentic, and even they have been chopped and re-arranged.
So to try to explain Jesus as historical based on such shaky evidence is to try to explain an unknown with an unknown.
We have a myth on our hands!
Do you guys have any good explanation that can make sense of the evidence? If Jesus didnt exist, Paul isnt what the Book of Acts, and His epistles say about him?
I mean, we have a lot of information on Paul... What he did, where he went, we even have archaeological evidence supporting one of his trials... All the letter he wrote, were to places he visited in the Book of Acts, and there is certainly a lot of evidence in the Epistles that confirm the Book of Acts.
I mean, you guys can doubt all you want, we actually expect you to doubt becuase you are non-believers and you are here debating against Christianity. Im just looking for any coherent/comprehensive explanation for the evidence from a non believing position...
Re: Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?
Post #30Paul’s Conversion and the Later Jerusalem Conference--Two Conflicting StoriesTart wrote:All the letter he wrote, were to places he visited in the Book of Acts, and there is certainly a lot of evidence in the Epistles that confirm the Book of Acts.
