Atheists: Can you disprove the resurrection or Jesus' existence?

[DeistPaladin]

I'll say it again, before we can discuss the "historical Jesus" we need to strictly define our criteria as to WTF that even means.

To me, it sounds like "the historical Superman". Yeah, Superman was a real character only without all the powers to fly about, have super strength or be invincible? What's left? The super powers are so intertwined into the very character concept that trying to suppose a mere mortal superman either makes no sense or it's such a radically different character that we're talking about someone else completely.

My wife writes works of fiction. I knew her stories before I knew her personally. As I got to know her personally, I found out about her real life experiences and people she knew who were the sources of inspiration for her fictional characters. Did that make her fictional characters and stories any less fictional?

To me, the words "historical Jesus" means you can honestly slap the label "based on a true story" on the Gospel accounts. That sound fair?

How many stories of Jesus would make any sense if they were based on a mortal rabbi? So many of the events that we can easily think of were either punctuated by a miracle or revolved around it completely. The story of him walking on water or bringing back the dead Lazerus wouldn't be possible if we tried to tell them from a strictly naturalistic view. Even his cleansing of the temple wouldn't work without magic. As Ken Humphreys pointed out, he'd be wrestled to the ground after turning over the first table.

Remove the miracles and what do you even have left? Some doomcrier named Yeshua who lived in first century Judea? There were several, probably more that we don't know of. A heretical splinter faction leader regarded as the messiah? There was one on every proverbial street corner.

What can we say were even his teachings? We have none of his writings and no reliable account of them, since we dismiss the Gospels as full of lies about magic powers (they could just as easily lie about what he said). His following split into a wild variety of factions who couldn't agree on even basic theological issues, indicating he must not have been very clear about what he believed.

How about his ministry? According to the Gospels it spread like wildfire to the surrounding provinces. People, rich and poor came from all over to see him. Herod Antipas wondered if he was John the Baptist returned. He had the established clergy fit to be tied, conspiring on Passover Eve to get rid of him.

According to actual history? *sound of crickets*

So we take away the magic. We don't know what he taught. His ministry was likely little more than a small, insignificant splinter faction that never got anyone's attention during his life. What part of this shall we say with any confidence was the basis of the Gospel tales?