Equating Jesus to fiction is irrational

[Tart]

For the past few years I have been seeing nonbelievers equate Jesus to any fiction of their choice. They say "Jesus is like Spider-man", "James Bond is just as real as Jesus", "We have the same about of evidence for King Arthur as we do for Jesus", etc... The list goes on and on.

So I want to give you guys a chance to prove this, if you believe these things.. I am willing to actually take these claims, and see if they can be justified, by comparing the evidence of any fiction of myth, to that of Jesus.. The historical evidence...

I am convinced that there is more historical evidence for Jesus then there is for ANY known fictional and/or mythological person. But i am willing for anyone to prove me wrong, and justify these comparisons.

For the purpose of discussion:
What fictional or mythological person is comparable to Jesus (bring your evidence)? Is there any fictional people who have the magnitude of historical evidence that Jesus does?

(and id allow anyone to question the validity of the evidence as well)

Does anyone really think Jesus should be equated to any fictional/mythological person?


If not, maybe we should stop making these claims...

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Does anyone really think Jesus should be equated to any fictional/mythological person?

Christopher Hitchens was willing to concede that there most likely was someone who did exist and to which the fiction of Jesus was then built around.

My own thoughts on the matter are that the most likely answer to the riddle is that someone with a remarkable insight and attractive charisma started a movement which gained traction and became noticed by Rome as a possible threat to 'the way of things' and was treated accordingly.
This in turn only fanned the flames of the new movement. Eventually when Rome realized that it could not extinguish the flames of the movement, it decided to infiltrate that movement and in time own it outright, which the historical evidence clearly shows is what actually did happen.

Within that action of infiltration, fiction was produced, and thus 'the story of Christ', apostles, martyrdom and the church of Christendom, etc developed and was presented as fact.

It is essentially an invention of the rich and clever, for the purpose of maintaining control of the overwhelming numbers of poor and stupid, and for all intent and purpose, it worked remarkably well, which isn't all that remarkable I suppose, since in general, clever always works well over stupid.

The downside is that rarely does stupid ever want to get clever about things, and thus - depending on the fiction being believed as the fact - that can and has indeed, as the historical evidence clearly shows, being dangerous and detrimental to overall human intellectual development

[Tart]

Ya i agree Jesus probably existed... Maybe we should all stop comparing him to fiction, as if he didnt...

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by Tart]

Ya i agree Jesus probably existed... Maybe we should all stop comparing him to fiction, as if he didnt...

The overall picture my point is making in regard to the magnitude of historical evidence is that the fiction is what is believed to be fact, and the reality is that whoever the person actually was through which the fiction of Jesus and 'The Christ' is modeled off, is lost to common history. the fiction literally replaced the fact.

[Divine Insight]

Ya i agree Jesus probably existed... Maybe we should all stop comparing him to fiction, as if he didnt...

The problem is that Jesus that Christian theists refer to is the Jesus described in the Gospel rumors.

If there was an actual historical Jesus it's impossible to know how much he was like (or not like) the Jesus described in the Gospel rumors.

I have no problem at all accepting the idea that there was a hippie Jew who rebelled against the orthodox Judaism of his day. I accept that he most likely argued with the Jewish religious authorities and publicly condemned them as being hypocrites. I accept that he most like did preach hippie moral values which he most likely got from Mahayana Buddhism and most certainly did not get from the Old Testament. I even accept that there was some sort of a mob crucifixion where Jesus was either killed or brutally beaten and crucified, but ultimately may have even survived the ordeal. (keep in mind that even the Gospel Rumors have Pilate exonerating Jesus and washing his hands of the whole affair, and telling the Jewish Priests to "see to it". So it was clearly an unofficial mob crucifixion and not an official Roman crucifixion.

I can accept all this and still view the "Jesus" described in the Gospel Rumors as a work of extreme exaggeration, superstitious nonsense, and outright false claims about him.

In this way the Jesus describe in the Gospels is still a "Fictional Character" even though there may have been an actual Jesus who sparked these outlandish tales.

[Goat]

For the past few years I have been seeing nonbelievers equate Jesus to any fiction of their choice. They say "Jesus is like Spider-man", "James Bond is just as real as Jesus", "We have the same about of evidence for King Arthur as we do for Jesus", etc... The list goes on and on.

So I want to give you guys a chance to prove this, if you believe these things.. I am willing to actually take these claims, and see if they can be justified, by comparing the evidence of any fiction of myth, to that of Jesus.. The historical evidence...

I am convinced that there is more historical evidence for Jesus then there is for ANY known fictional and/or mythological person. But i am willing for anyone to prove me wrong, and justify these comparisons.

For the purpose of discussion:
What fictional or mythological person is comparable to Jesus (bring your evidence)? Is there any fictional people who have the magnitude of historical evidence that Jesus does?

(and id allow anyone to question the validity of the evidence as well)

Does anyone really think Jesus should be equated to any fictional/mythological person?


If not, maybe we should stop making these claims...

Tell me, do you believe the story about George Washington as the cherry tree?? How would you characterize that story? Tall tale?? Myth?? History?

What do you call the stories about Robin hood, King Arthur?

How about the stories about walking on water, and bringing the dead back to life, the dead walking around Jerusalem and coming back to life personally?

[marco]

Does anyone really think Jesus should be equated to any fictional/mythological person?

There are several aspects of fiction here. The one you're dealing with is about Jesus as a real persson in history. Some say he's not.


On balance it would seem he probably did exist but the problem is he entered the scene when he was about thirty and then disappeared a short time later. There is an aspect of fiction to this.


However, there seems to be a lot of fiction attached to the deeds attributed to Jesus. His descent from David, then further back to Adam, outlined in two separate and different genealogies. The disputed claims around his birth. His shadowy involvement with John the Baptist: it is sometimes difficult to reconcile their dates. And the miracles attributed to him before his disappearance give us plenty of speculation for saying they are fictional. There are of course sequels: it is sometimes supposed that he escaped to Gallia Narbonensis with his family; that Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain. Jesus may even have gone to or come from India, as some religious groups claim.


The legend of King Arthur contains more substance than the tale of Jesus; he too set up a fellowship. Many today believe he actually existed.


The vast gap in our knowledge about Jesus leads many to suppose that much of his story is fiction. He may well have wandered the earth around the Sea of Galilee but it is questionable whether he performed supernatural feats. Therein lies the fiction.

[Goat]

Ya i agree Jesus probably existed... Maybe we should all stop comparing him to fiction, as if he didnt...

Is the story that of King Arthur getting a sword from the Lake fiction or not?

[marco]

Ya i agree Jesus probably existed... Maybe we should all stop comparing him to fiction, as if he didnt...

Is the story that of King Arthur getting a sword from the Lake fiction or not?

Or did he get it from the stone? So too with Christ's birth: Was there a census? Was Herod still alive? Did they spend time in Egypt? Did they even travel? Because we have next to nothing on Christ's biography, people have given us fictional details, usually to make the story conform to some bit of Scripture. In such a way are legends made. Arthur from his sword and Jesus from his water into wine.



Can organisations involving billions spring from fictions? Do we really believe Adam and Eve lived in a sunny garden? With political will anything can be done - even resurrections.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

I am convinced that there is more historical evidence for Jesus then there is for ANY known fictional and/or mythological person.

Are you sure you want to do this?



Okay then. Challenge accepted. Give us your historical evidence for Jesus, and I will use your very standards of evidence to prove that Spiderman exists. Oh I know for a fact that Spiderman is fictional, you know for a fact that Spiderman is fictional...but the point is, that the very historical evidence(s) you claim you can use for Jesus, I will use for Spiderman and in order to be logicall consistent, you will have to agree that Spiderman is then real.

Go on. Hit me with your best shot. I am fully confident that I can do what I said up above.