Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think the evidence to the contrary is stronger than the evidence for, but that's just me.

[Zazzy]

I have no idea whether or not a guy names Jesus existed, and I don't care.

[Whateverist]

This isn't a "legend". We have an early record of an even earlier creed. We think that the letter was written around 55AD. This is too early to allow for legend, and bare in mind the message that is contained is that Christ died for our sins; which by all accounts is the purpose of the crucifixion. The creed itself goes right back to within a few months or years of the crucifixion itself. There was no contradictory belief taught before this, and of that you can be certain.

Atheists tend to be unimpressed by these facts, mostly because they stubbornly don't believe any of them.

From that same epistle we also get this:

• 1 Corinthians 1:13: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
  1 Corinthians 1:23: but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

First of all thank you for the scholarship. I'm not a bible-phile but even I can appreciate the concise, even manner in which you've written this. I lack the background knowledge to form an informed opinion of whether you are completely correct. But I'm at least inclined to allow there was a man named Jesus who was crucified, if only to meet your politeness with my own.

But what the significance of this event may be is another matter. Even if there are characters in the bible who did in fact exist, there is no reason I can see to believe this Jesus died for anyone's sins or that he was resurrected. All of that does seem the stuff of legends and one which arises all over the world.

Sadly I have no scholarship of my own to give you in return. I have no evidence that Jesus was not the son of 'God', that he did not rise from the dead, that he did not die for our sins or that there is not a personified immaterial being corresponding to what you call 'God'. I am first and foremost agnostic toward these claims. I must confess that the way I understand the phenomenon of your belief is as an instance of a living myth. That isn't so much a position I arrive at by evidence as it is my trying to make sense of what goes on around me.

[Angrboda]

weak.

[Doubting Thomas]

But let's get back to basics. I want to talk about facts. We have a Bible, it has 66 books, 49 Old Testament and 27 New. There are various different ways of counting the OT books, so you also hear ancient sources talking about the "22 scrolls", etc.

But what do you have outside of the bible?

[Captain Colostomy]

Bah. I haven't the patience to multi quote the OP.

I would address one issue...stating that 55CE is 'too early for legend'. Says who??? Anyone familiar with the outlaw West(US), is also familiar with how the James Gang was immortalized in dime store novels even as the gang still was operating. The stories romanticised the lawlessness because it made for sales, not because it was reporting the truth. I see no reason to consider the Jesus story as any different. It actually smacks strongly of legend, and has Jesse James to compare itself with. No doubt there are scores of legends assembled similarly.

[pocaracas]

Not many people doubt that Plato existed... at least, someone writing under that name.
Plato wrote a lot about Socrates. A few people doubt that Socrates existed, tough... Still, many accept that the man existed... All that is claimed about him is that he was a great teacher, lived a good life, until he was forced to give it up. nothing too far fetched in this tale...
Then Plato went on to write about a place he called Atlantis... that is altogether different sort of account... only a hand full of loonies believes this place existed as is portrayed in the book....

I wonder why there's such a difference in the believability of these accounts...

Could it be that one is ordinary, but the other is somewhat extraordinary?

[Faith No More]

weak.

In other words, typical Christian argument.

[Tonus]

Is it true that Suetonius and Josephus "identified" Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah, and Tacitus reported on miracles that Vespasian performed? Wouldn't that indicate that it was Vespasian, and not Jesus, who is really god? After all, we have ancient writings from his contemporaries making those claims. Are their claims any different? How would we know which claims are legitimate?

[Doubting Thomas]

I would address one issue...stating that 55CE is 'too early for legend'. Says who??? Anyone familiar with the outlaw West(US), is also familiar with how the James Gang was immortalized in dime store novels even as the gang still was operating. The stories romanticised the lawlessness because it made for sales, not because it was reporting the truth. I see no reason to consider the Jesus story as any different. It actually smacks strongly of legend, and has Jesse James to compare itself with. No doubt there are scores of legends assembled similarly.

Right. Jesus probably just stepped in a puddle and then through countless retellings it became a miracle of him walking on water.