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

[SiNcE_1985]

Weird that the first video is a short clip by a creationist quote mining out of a much longer lecture. In context, Penrose is making an analogy between his theory and the argument from fine tuning.

Nonsense.

ikr? Those kooky creationists.

So, you elected to respond to this^.


Instead of responding to this..

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

It was fine tuned from the very beginning...the problem is (on naturalism); you guys can't appeal to any naturalistic mechanism or entity to set those parameters in place...not that early in the game.

No.

Something (someone) outside it, had to set those dials in place from the onset.

Please respond to this^.

I don't care nothing about broadening the scope or whatever mess you have an opinion about in that regard.

Now, do you think you can take me serious [sic] long enough to talk about the mythical Jesus?

First, admit you were wrong about what you said about the Penrose equation.

If you people ain't making unproven claims, you're making blatantly false statements... and if it ain't false statements, it is fallacious arguments..and if it ain't that, it's something else bogus.

You folks are gonna have to start standing on these L's your're taking...instead of quickly trying to move on to another topic and/or being flat out disingenuous about it.

[POI]

You started the popularity stuff, and I finished it.

Wrong again sir. Please re--read post 190. Oh, that's right, you handwave, rather than re-visit stuff you do not actually address.

I agree, the evidence for Caesar outweighs the evidence for Jesus.

Great, then we both agree it is more valid to conclude, based upon evidence based reasoning, that Caesar was more likely to actually exist, when compared to Jesus.

It means absolutely nothing tho...considering the aftermath of what happened once both departed this earth. When it comes to the impact/aftermath, it's not even close...in fact, offensive in comparison.

Yes, it does mean something 'tho'. We have way more evidence for the existence of J. Caesar, verses Jesus. Discussing global impact is a whole other conversation. Unconfirmed characters from antiquity can have a little, or a lot of impact, depending on facts unrelated to evidence for their actual existence.

If I say it, it's relevant.

Another perfect example of your misplaced confidence....

Obviously, we should expect more evidence supporting the existence of Presidents of countries (Lincoln), and kings and emperors of empires (AtG, Caesar). You aren't pulling some rabbit out of the hat by drawing that conclusion.

LOL! If a man really raised the dead, cured the blind, walked on water, rose from the dead where 'hundreds' or more actually saw it, there would be WAY more "evidence" than any compared to run-o-da-mill deemed leader from antiquity.

Nah. Even if he wrote it himself, 2,000 years later,

No Venom. My standards are pretty low, which is why I place Jesus's probable existence-level at about 50% instead of much lower.

Nothing can be ever good enough for super-skeptics;

ROFL! This response is coming from a person who freely commits science denial, even from the theoretical science(s). As I stated above, I'm being quite generous to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt. And you already agreed above that the likelihood of Caesar's existence, based upon evidence, logically outweighs a Jesus.

they complain about what we don't have or what we should have, when, even if we had it that way, they would be complaining about that way and asking why it isn't another way. We (Jesus included) ain't interested in cat & mouse games. We have what we have. Either you believe it, or you don't

All I read here is a bunch of crying....

Please, tell me how the Bible hasn't been preserved?

Because we do not even have the originals. And the earliest copies conflict with one another in irreconcilable ways. I thought you knew this already? If a Jesus character wanted to spread truth, he would logically write it and preserve it himself. Not instead leave it in the hands of corrupt and fallible humans to "muck" it up much later.

1. He should have written it down.

2. He didn't write it down.

3. Therefore, he didn't exist.

Fallacious reasoning.

Hahaha! It's just another logical point in which the skeptic (me) can place on the (50% chance that he never really existed side). Basic logic asks why he did not assure the words were recorded perfectly and also preserved.?.?.?.? It's a very legitimate and logical set of questioning and reasoning for which the theist side of the isle likes to handwave away. Which is exactly what you are demonstrating here.

I'm staying here.

Ah yes, yet another handwave, in an effort to ignore my valid points in post 154.

Ok, I watched the video...and I'm convinced!!! The Bible is not true, and Jesus never existed.

Wow, who would have ever thought that a YouTube video would be the end-all-be-all to knowledge and discovery.

I don't need to look any further..the YouTube video convinced me!!

Yeah, right.

Moving along.

I'm pretty sure your first sentence is just as disingenuous and/or sarcastic as the following sentences also given above. It's yet another prime example of a handwave.

Um, no I didn't chop it up. Once I see the word "indoctrinated", it's wrap. Incoming Genetic Fallacy from that point on.

Yes, you did. You saw red and chopped the heck out of it. Your indoctrinated induced belief preservation is tied to an illogical religion.

Well, I'm gladly conned then.

This statement explains an awful lot then. Being you are a follower of Mr. Hovind and all....

Again, if we knew who Luke was and it was written two months after the Resurrection, you wouldn't be a believer. So, it doesn't matter what we have. We have what we have, and either you believe it, or you don't. You don't. We do. And I say all that while completely disagreeing with everything you said.

You missed my point here Venom. 'Luke' is not corroborated by actually anyone. We also know this publication is filled with vast inconsistencies, when compared to Mark and Q. Since such claims are highly contingent upon 'eyewitness' testimonials, as they would logically need to be, being they would be observed one-time events, to not have any actual corroborated eyewitnesses is quite damning. Unlike the aforementioned Book of Mormon, which appears to have several corroborated testimonials. And yet, I doubt you believe Mr. Smith. This means you apply a clear cognitive dissonance, and hold to a lower standard for your set of beliefs, verses others.

Luke has information in his book that Mark doesn't have... namely, the census that took place during Jesus' birth and the temptation of Jesus. And he has an additional 8 chapters over Mark..and it is the difference that would obviously make his book unique. It is a classic example of, "the same, yet different". So, stop it.

The video goes over all of this. There are too many details to list here. Which is why I asked that you just watch it. But handwaving is instead your preferred MO.

I simply disagree. Provide specifics.

I did. You handwaved it. See directly above.

You are reaching. Obviously, both books are from the same source...or one borrowed from the other while putting his own spin on it

I did not place you in option 3).

Oh, was Jesus supposed to write his autobiography before his Resurrection, or after?

He's apparently beyond the natural. He apparently also knows the future. Please do not compare him to all other mere mortals from antiquity.

And yeah, it would be a different conversation...the skeptical marker would simply be placed elsewhere, instead of where it currently is.

It would raise my confidence-level on the probability of his mere existence.

Look, I already agreed/acknowledged that it was an interpolation...so there was no need for you to run wild with it by trying to tout your knowledge of the situation. It wasn't necessary.

This is just ONE example of believers lying for a 'Jesus'. 'Luke' is yet another prime example. And 'Luke' is one of your sighted sources for truth. Which begs the question, how many identified lies does it take before you discard the storyline all together?.?.?.? Inquiring minds want to know?

You could have directed that unnecessary energy towards telling me which country that you live in, where Christianity is the dominant religion, as you stated..because that question remains unanswered. I'm still trying to figure out why you have this compulsion to go day by day, habitually involving yourself in Christian concerns...as an unbeliever who claims Jesus is a myth.

You've accused me of being repetitive in the past, and yet, you ask me redundant questions in which I have answered clearly and extensively.

I'll tackle the rest later.....

[POI]

I disagree with your claim that we know the degree probability. Jesus existed, that's all I care to know.

More handwaving.

Yeah, just like the onus is/was on YOU to support the claim that Jesus is myth, which is the title of your beloved thread.

More deflection/handwaving, because you have been exposed/caught. No "scholar" is going on record to claim Paul met Jesus while he was alive. You know this.... This is just an 'un-scholarly' internet troll grasping at straws. You also already know the title of this topic is being sarcastic. The body of the OP clearly explains my position. The smell of desperation is growing thicker with each and every subsequent response.

Second, you are wrong...the onus isn't on me to support the claim about Paul seeing or meeting Jesus, because I never made the claim that he did.

Scholars go on record that Paul never met Jesus. Do you have a differing opinion?

Well, too bad that's not the definition of contemporary. Look up the word, and then get back to me.

You are wrong again sir:

con·tem·po·rar·y
/kənˈtempəˌrerē/
adjective
1.
living or occurring at the same time.
"the event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
2.
belonging to or occurring in the present.

*********************

In this context, we are highly confident, (within the restraints of antiquity), that Paul never met or even saw a Jesus while he was alive. Hence, he was not contemporary in this context,

Wishful thinking? Whether or not Paul met or saw Jesus while he was alive, ain't even my argument lol.

It can't be, 'cuz you know he didn't. But since we are looking for evidence to substantiate Jesus's mere existence, the theist must now desperately try other vague avenues

Only one is required, and we have that with Jesus; Paul.

Nope. See above.

Um, no. Nothing in the context of those writings says anything about "this is what earlier folks believed". They wrote what they wrote as statements of facts.

Right, which is what earlier believers believed.

I agree, lies don't need to be added... especially when the truth works so much better.

Great, then your argument is completely kaput, as the Gospels are filled with lies too. You can start by comparing Luke to Mark.

There is only one JC that has had a global impact for billions of people, 2000 years after his death.m And that JC ain't Julius Caesar.

Absolutely irrelevant to what I said, which is why you must instead revert to canned apologetics.

Christianity had already spread through the Roman empire and reached the highest office in the land by the 60's CE. It was already poppin, 3 centuries before Constantine.

No, it wasn't. It would have faded to black, just like many others for which you would discard, (even if they presented with higher levels of evidence), if it was not ordained later by such a superpower.

Comparing Christianity, the biggest religious movement known to man...to movements that no one knows, or cares about.

Laughable.

Nothingburger response here....

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #171]

From post 154:

I would first want to know if these two folks really existed? If they did, these above claims (from inquiry) do not seem very far-fetched to also just assume happened, without much pushback. Meaning, if these two folks from antiquity met their burden of proof for their existence, it would not take much for me to also believe or conclude that Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode an elephant. Now, if a claim from Caesar was that he instead walked on water, cured the blind, rose the rotting dead, battled Satan, or any other more-so far-fetched claims, then I'd probably need ALOT more evidence.

First things first... What standard(s) do we use to determine if such stated character(s) from antiquity really existed in reality?

1) Are the claims consistent and/or trustworthy?
2) Are the given source(s) reliable, as they also express other details? Meaning, do the other claims within these documents comport with (or) can they also be corroborated using external source(s)?
3) Is the given source(s) unbiased, via both religiously (and/or) politically?
4) Do the claim(s) exclude breaking immutable (and/or) "natural" law(s)?
5) Are the claim(s) backed by any substantiated relic(s)?

The more (no's) above, the worse off the odds are... The Bible looks to then be quite low on the probable 'truth-barometer.' Sorry.

Historians verify ancient claims by cross-referencing information across multiple types of evidence, including written sources, archaeological finds, and material artifacts, then critically evaluating each source's origin, purpose, and reliability. They look for corroboration, or multiple independent sources that agree, and use contextual analysis to determine if a claim is typical or unique. They also use techniques like comparing handwriting or linguistic style to authenticate documents and check for consistency with known historical or archaeological data.

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.

[SiNcE_1985]

More deflection/handwaving, because you have been exposed/caught. No "scholar" is going on record to claim Paul met Jesus while he was alive. You know this....This is just an 'un-scholarly' internet troll grasping at straws.

Whether Paul met Jesus is irrelevant to whether or not Jesus existed...so scholarly opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

I can care less, because I don't need for Paul to have met Jesus for my argument to work.

You also already know the title of this topic is being sarcastic.

No, I don't know.

I would know, if from our dialogue you were coming off as agnostic as you claimed you are..which we both know was nonsense from the time you typed the words.

The body of the OP clearly explains my position.

No, our dialogue clearly explains what your true position is.

All of the modesty stuff is fake/phony.

The smell of desperation is growing thicker with each and every subsequent response.

Not from me.

Scholars go on record that Paul never met Jesus.

Yeah, and they also go on record for saying Jesus existed.

Oh, I get it...appeal to scholars only when it benefits you.

Do you have a differing opinion?

I shared my opinion on the matter.

You are wrong again sir:

con·tem·po·rar·y
/kənˈtempəˌrerē/
adjective
1.
living or occurring at the same time.
"the event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
2.
belonging to or occurring in the present.

*********************

In this context, we are highly confident, (within the restraints of antiquity), that Paul never met or even saw a Jesus while he was alive. Hence, he was not contemporary in this context

It says LIVING during the time.

Paul didn't have to met Jesus in order to be living at the same time as Jesus.

Paul lived during the time of Jesus, which, even by the mere definition you provided, qualifies him as a contemporary of Jesus.

You don't have to meet someone in order to be contemporary to him/her.

So, you are just simply wrong here...as usual.

It can't be, 'cuz you know he didn't.

No, I don't.

I don't know if he did, and I don't know if he didn't.

And neither do you or anyone else.

But since we are looking for evidence to substantiate Jesus's mere existence, the theist must now desperately try other vague avenues

We don't need to look far.

Paul.

Right, which is what earlier believers believed.

Ok, so let's go with that.

Both Tacitus and Josephus stated that Jesus was put to death under the orders of Pilate.

You say both of those guys are just repeating what believers believed.

Well, if the believers believed it, then you can't say they were lying (sounds familiar, doesn't it)?

So, what would compel believers to believe that Jesus was sent to death by Pilate?

Why would they believe it?

Now, I don't for one bit agree with you here..but let's go with it, for arguments sake.

Great, then your argument is completely kaput, as the Gospels are filled with lies too. You can start by comparing Luke to Mark.

I read both, and I'm cool with both.

No, it wasn't. It would have faded to black, just like many others for which you would discard, (even if they presented with higher levels of evidence), if it was not ordained later by such a superpower.

Um, no. You are wrong.

Paul was writing to Christian congregations all through Rome, from the 50's and 60's CE.

That's how far it spread from Jerusalem.

And by the mid 60's CE, you have the Great Fire of Rome, which involved the emperor Nero persecuting Chrisrians (which is what Tacitus was talking about).

So, like I said, Christianity had already reached the highest office in the land, the emperor himself, by the mid 60's CE.

3 centuries before Constantine.

[POI]

Whether Paul met Jesus is irrelevant to whether or not Jesus existed..

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

No, I don't know. I would know, if from our dialogue you were coming off as agnostic as you claimed you are..which we both know was nonsense from the time you typed the words.

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

No, our dialogue clearly explains what your true position is. All of the modesty stuff is fake/phony.

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.

Yeah, and they also go on record for saying Jesus existed. Oh, I get it...appeal to scholars only when it benefits you.

I'm only bringing up the term 'scholar'' because you did so. In reality, I'm already aware that some "scholars" even take the mythicist position. 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.

It says LIVING during the time. Paul didn't have to met Jesus in order to be living at the same time as Jesus. Paul lived during the time of Jesus, which, even by the mere definition you provided, qualifies him as a contemporary of Jesus. You don't have to meet someone in order to be contemporary to him/her. So, you are just simply wrong here...as usual.

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.

No, I don't. I don't know if he did, and I don't know if he didn't. And neither do you or anyone else.

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?.?.?

Ok, so let's go with that. Both Tacitus and Josephus stated that Jesus was put to death under the orders of Pilate. You say both of those guys are just repeating what believers believed.

Yes.

Well, if the believers believed it, then you can't say they were lying (sounds familiar, doesn't 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?

So, what would compel believers to believe that Jesus was sent to death by Pilate?

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

Why would they believe it?

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

Um, no. You are wrong. Paul was writing to Christian congregations all through Rome, from the 50's and 60's CE. That's how far it spread from Jerusalem.

Did any of these folks ever write back?

And by the mid 60's CE, you have the Great Fire of Rome, which involved the emperor Nero persecuting Chrisrians (which is what Tacitus was talking about).

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

So, like I said, Christianity had already reached the highest office in the land, the emperor himself, by the mid 60's CE. 3 centuries before Constantine.

Sure, but HOW many? I won't hold my breath. But EVEN IF we agreed it was a lot, popularity or consensus has no bearing on truth, as you already know. Hence, it's futile to belabor this particular exchange.

[POI]

a personal encounter with Jesus is accessible for those who seek and call upon Him in the right way.

I guess I did it the wrong way for decades.

[OneJack]

a personal encounter with Jesus is accessible for those who seek and call upon Him in the right way.

I guess I did it the wrong way for decades.

Try to sift your ways in line with Jesus', where He says: unless you let go of the old, what you've learned on your own will not bring you the wisdom that comes from your Lord.

[Difflugia]

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.

Something (someone) outside it, had to set those dials in place from the onset.

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

Please respond to this^.

There you go.

I don't care nothing about broadening the scope or whatever mess you have an opinion about in that regard.

We know.

Now, do you think you can take me serious [sic] long enough to talk about the mythical Jesus?

First, admit you were wrong about what you said about the Penrose equation.

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

If you people ain't making unproven claims, you're making blatantly false statements... and if it ain't false statements, it is fallacious arguments..and if it ain't that, it's something else bogus.

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

You folks are gonna have to start standing on these L's your're taking...instead of quickly trying to move on to another topic and/or being flat out disingenuous about it.

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.

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!

[Clownboat]

You would need to point to where you did the dismantling as I fail to see it?

You don't see it, because you do not wish to see it.

When you said this: "The one you provided fell flat on its face". That is just a claim and nothing was dismantled.

Be well.

You literally responded to everything I said in the post, but the part where I addressed your concern.

And then you come on here talking about you failed to see it.



You ain't ready, bruh.

Here, hold this L.

I just wanted to acknowledge this post. I see nothing debate worthy to reply to though sadly.