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...

[bluethread]

To clarify, I am not here to make a claim if anything is a legend or not within the Gospels... I am simply presenting the historical evidence, the reasonable historical evidence for Jesus, that would be accepted by anyone reading it. If you would like to contest the historical evidence as being myth, or legend, or question the validity of that evidence, feel free to do so and specifically point out anything questionable, and the reason why...

This thread is meant to compare the historical evidence of Jesus Christ, to any mythological and/or fictional person, to see if it is reasonable to compare Jesus to someone who never existed at all.

Is it reasonable to say there is the same amount of evidence for Jesus, as there is for any known fictional person? I think the answer to that is NO, it is irrational to suggest that. But im here so people have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Sorry, it took so long to get back. My point is that along with empirically verifiable information, legend, mythology and even fiction IS history. The belief that all of history is empirically verifiable is a rather modern concept. As Rudyard Kipling said, "Fiction is Truth's elder sister. Obviously. No one in the world knew what truth was till some one had told a story." Radio, TV and the internet have given us the illusion that what has happened can actually be verified empirically. However, nearly everything is filtered through bias. Fiction provides cultural context and presents history in a more memerable fashion. It also often makes it possible for one to write the truth in dangerous times. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and The Wonderful Wizard of OZ are history. Lendgend, mythology and fiction are "evidence". What is important is to recognize what kind of "evidence" one is look at and the advantages and draw backs of that kind of "evidence".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 88 by Tart]

Ya so the Delphi Inscription is identifying a person Paul was tried by.

Here is what you said the Delphi Inscription was supposed to do.

Post 64, by Tart

Ok here is archaeological evidence [b]backing up Paul existed, and was on trial, talked about in the book of Acts...[/b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

So we all believe (becuase of reasons like this) Paul existed, and wrote his Epistles... Do you agree? Why not?

(emphasis mine)

You used Delphi to back up Paul's existence, despite the fact that Delphi mentions Paul not at all. You used Delphi to back up that Paul was on trial, despite the fact Delphi mentions this specific trial not at all. You used Delphi to back up that Paul was talked about in Acts, despite the fact that Delphi mentions Acts not at all.

I will give you Delphi...if you will give me Spiderman, since I have a paper here written by Obama.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01/th ... ce-reform/
It mentions Spiderman not at all. It does not mention the particulars of the meeting depicted between Obama and Spidey in the comic I issued earlier, but it does mention one of the people Spidey is said to have met: Obama.
Going by your standards, it ought to work perfectly well.

Otherwise, I expect you to retract your usage of Delphi.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 87 by rikuoamero]

And just FYI... The evidence is outlined in post 24 and post 42... Which we can get more into specifics... This is the historical evidence as I see it, which id allow people to question any specifics of it... Is Spider man comparable to the evidence?

I know, thank you. I was merely waiting until I had some time to myself to go through it and reply. I will have a reply sometime tonight.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by Tart]

Thanks for the reply William, its good to talk with people who are questioning the evidence presented...

Lets allow your idea of Paul to be true, you are claiming Paul had ill intentions in becoming Christian... Right? So Paul existed, he wrote the Epistles, but perhaps lied about his sincerity...

So when Paul talked of Peter, James, Mark, and Luke... Its certainly believable these people existed... Right?

Of course it is Tart. As I wrote;

Without the preaching of faith in what was being told was the actual truth, Paul wouldn't have been able to get his religion off the ground and prepared for Romes eventual takeover of it.

But what is believable is not the same as 'the truth' or 'evidence'. A con artist does not try and sting the mark by neglecting to have props which appear to the mark as being real and genuine, and nor does a con artist rely on the power of lies alone. It is simply necessary to include supported evidence in the mix to act as the bait for the hook.

What is required in relation to Paul as a first step of inquiry is extra-biblical evidence which shows that Paul existed, and that he did so in a time frame which would allow for his actually meeting the supposed apostles of Jesus.

Even then, what is required is extra-biblical evidence that these self-proclaimed apostles existed AND that they are who they claimed to be AND that they they were faithful in their rendition of accurately passing along the actual words that Jesus spoke AND that Jesus actually spoke said words.

We are informed that scribes followed this person called Jesus and recorded his words as he spoke them. That is just as likely a story told in order to give credence in the minds of the unwary to the other claims being made without evidence to support them.

Jesus would have been better to have written things down himself. Perhaps he did, but there is no evidence of such.

Perhaps the reason he didn't was because he knew that the word of GOD was not something which could be written down, such as what is currently being explored in the "Is the Bible equal to GOD?" thread.

Indeed, it is written in the bible stories that Jesus referred to himself as 'the word of GOD' so in light of that and such sayings attributed to him related to that concept, things written down and believed through faith (not evidence) are - at the very least - questionable, and SHOULD be questioned, examined, and sorted by the individual in order that some semblance of truth might be revealed therein.

That process has to involve not believing everything the bible has to say about anything as necessarily being the truth of the matter, and this is something which is exceptionally hard - if not impossibly so - for the investigator to achieve if he/she approaches the study with the prerequisite that "the bible is the word of GOD" implying also, it is inerrant.

It appears to me, by what you have so far been arguing, that you have yet to jump that hurdle.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 87 by rikuoamero]

Ya so the Delphi Inscription is identifying a person Paul was tried by. This actually gives a timeline for Paul's actions in the Book of Acts.. Scholars (mind you every biblical scholar i have ever seen, even the top "Jesus myth" scholars all agree Paul existed) have been able to use evidence like this to establish a year Paul was tried by Gallio. All the Biblical scholars use this evidence to help establish a timeline for Paul's life. Thus this is archaeological evidence that helps establish the historical reality of the life of Paul... They all agree, that this evidence helps determine the reality of the Book of Acts.

So listen man, Im not interested in you showing you can manipulate evidence to serve your biases... Im interested in the truth. I am interested what is objectively true with the historical merit of the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the Epistles...

That said... We should agree Paul existed.. Period... Im not interested in you playing games in trying to show the evidence for Paul can be twisted.. No one believes Paul didnt exist... No one... Not a single scholar i have ever seen... Zip. Zero. Nadda...

So surely you dont believe Paul didnt exist. Right?

If you look at the inscription, it indeed does not mention paul. THis is the statement (including resconscrution)

Tiber[ius Claudius Cae]sar Augustus Ge[rmanicus, invested with tribunician po]wer [for the 12th time, acclaimed Imperator for t]he 26th time, F[ather of the Fa]ther[land...]. For a l[ong time have I been not onl]y [well-disposed towards t]he ci[ty] of Delph[i, but also solicitous for its pro]sperity, and I have always guard[ed th]e cul[t of t]he [Pythian] Apol[lo. But] now [since] it is said to be desti[tu]te of [citi]zens, as [L. Jun]ius Gallio, my fri[end] an[d procon]sul, [recently reported to me, and being desirous that Delphi] should retain [inta]ct its for[mer rank, I] ord[er you (pl.) to in]vite well-born people also from [ot]her cities [to Delphi as new inhabitants....][4]

It does establish a date for pro-council Gallo, who is mentioned in acts.. but that is assuming the Paul exists, and the account in acts is valid. It just is something that would give a time frame for the events in Acts, if those events actually happened.

However, that would have nothing to do with Jesus being true or not, just relating to the time frame Paul would have had some claimed events associated with him. It would have nothing to do with the truth of Paul's writings either.

Ya, so this is why i have to take baby steps with you guys, to establish a foundation for the historical evidence in the Book of Acts, and the Gospels.. You keep jumping the gun.. "that doesnt prove Jesus"... I never said it does.... If youd like to jump the gun, feel free to read and respond to the evidence in post 42...

So lets continue to micro step this process... (end game is in post 42, just FYI)... So Paul existed. There is no good reason to believe Paul didnt exist, there is no good reason to believe the Book of Act's isnt accurate in terms of Paul's trials, the people Paul interacted with, the beginning of the first Christian Church... The evidence lead us to believe these things are valid, and iv seen no evidence suggesting otherwise...

Right?

[Tart]

To clarify, I am not here to make a claim if anything is a legend or not within the Gospels... I am simply presenting the historical evidence, the reasonable historical evidence for Jesus, that would be accepted by anyone reading it. If you would like to contest the historical evidence as being myth, or legend, or question the validity of that evidence, feel free to do so and specifically point out anything questionable, and the reason why...

This thread is meant to compare the historical evidence of Jesus Christ, to any mythological and/or fictional person, to see if it is reasonable to compare Jesus to someone who never existed at all.

Is it reasonable to say there is the same amount of evidence for Jesus, as there is for any known fictional person? I think the answer to that is NO, it is irrational to suggest that. But im here so people have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Sorry, it took so long to get back. My point is that along with empirically verifiable information, legend, mythology and even fiction IS history. The belief that all of history is empirically verifiable is a rather modern concept. As Rudyard Kipling said, "Fiction is Truth's elder sister. Obviously. No one in the world knew what truth was till some one had told a story." Radio, TV and the internet have given us the illusion that what has happened can actually be verified empirically. However, nearly everything is filtered through bias. Fiction provides cultural context and presents history in a more memerable fashion. It also often makes it possible for one to write the truth in dangerous times. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and The Wonderful Wizard of OZ are history. Lendgend, mythology and fiction are "evidence". What is important is to recognize what kind of "evidence" one is look at and the advantages and draw backs of that kind of "evidence".

Ya, so everyone can judge the evidence for themselves, and determine whether or not it is reasonable to believe...

[Tart]

[Replying to post 88 by Tart]

Ya so the Delphi Inscription is identifying a person Paul was tried by.

Here is what you said the Delphi Inscription was supposed to do.

Post 64, by Tart

Ok here is archaeological evidence [b]backing up Paul existed, and was on trial, talked about in the book of Acts...[/b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

So we all believe (becuase of reasons like this) Paul existed, and wrote his Epistles... Do you agree? Why not?

(emphasis mine)

You used Delphi to back up Paul's existence, despite the fact that Delphi mentions Paul not at all. You used Delphi to back up that Paul was on trial, despite the fact Delphi mentions this specific trial not at all. You used Delphi to back up that Paul was talked about in Acts, despite the fact that Delphi mentions Acts not at all.

I will give you Delphi...if you will give me Spiderman, since I have a paper here written by Obama.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01/th ... ce-reform/
It mentions Spiderman not at all. It does not mention the particulars of the meeting depicted between Obama and Spidey in the comic I issued earlier, but it does mention one of the people Spidey is said to have met: Obama.
Going by your standards, it ought to work perfectly well.

Otherwise, I expect you to retract your usage of Delphi.

Well we can certainly see Gallio was a Roman proconsul, during the time Acts identified him on being in contact with Paul, and being a proconsul of Rome... This obviously is historical evidence supporting the chronology of Acts... Gallio existing...

The best explanation of the evidence is Paul was in contact with Gallio! That is why all the Biblical scholars use evidence like this to determine what historically happened in the Book of Acts!

Because we are interested in knowing the truth about what happened in the first century with Christianity... We are trying to determine what actually happened, historically. Not try and blot it out, but understand it...

Personally i think this entire thread has demonstrated the irrational behavior on non-believers with the evidence... If it was up to you guys, you would blot out all the evidence in support of these stories... In fact. thats going to be what you are going to try and do, with your response to post 42 (coming tonight)... You guys are trying to understand what actually happened historically...


I mean i built a reasonable case... Any person in their right mind should just accept it for what it is. I mean it may not be a perfect case, and im not saying i know what exactly happened. But this is just the reasonable historical evidence for the New Testament.. Its crazy how you guys treat the evidence...

If an atheist wrote a history book, Christianity would have never existed at all.

[Jagella]

Out of range? Im trying to get the historical merit of King Author from you... I want you guys to prove me wrong, justify comparing Jesus to fiction is actually rational... Do i have to somehow pry the evidence out of you? What is historical about King Author?

But Tart, I posted exactly what you asked for in the OP: a comparison between Jesus and a (probably) fictional character demonstrating that the evidence for Jesus and that character (in my example King Arthur) is about the same. So you commit the logical mistake of accepting evidence for what you want to believe while rejecting the same kind of evidence for what you don't want to believe.

To be logically consistent, you need to believe King Arthur was historical if you insist Jesus was historical because the two figures have the same evidence for their historicity.

One of the biggest fallacies in real-Jesus apologetics is special pleading. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is essentially the same as the evidence for figures dismissed as legendary.

[Tart]

Out of range? Im trying to get the historical merit of King Author from you... I want you guys to prove me wrong, justify comparing Jesus to fiction is actually rational... Do i have to somehow pry the evidence out of you? What is historical about King Author?

But Tart, I posted exactly what you asked for in the OP: a comparison between Jesus and a (probably) fictional character demonstrating that the evidence for Jesus and that character (in my example King Arthur) is about the same. So you commit the logical mistake of accepting evidence for what you want to believe while rejecting the same kind of evidence for what you don't want to believe.

To be logically consistent, you need to believe King Arthur was historical if you insist Jesus was historical because the two figures have the same evidence for their historicity.

One of the biggest fallacies in real-Jesus apologetics is special pleading. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is essentially the same as the evidence for figures dismissed as legendary.

You say the evidence for Jesus and King Author is the same... How so?

[Goat]

Ya, so everyone can judge the evidence for themselves, and determine whether or not it is reasonable to believe...

Indeed, that is why Mark Twain wrote 'The best cure for Christianity is reading the bible''