One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

My thoughts on "The Historical Jesus":

1. There is no proof.

Oh Lordy! You’re one of these fringe people too? So much for honest scholarship. Not sure what you mean by proof, but the evidence is overwhelming. Multiple contemporary accounts based on the testimony of eye witnesses to Jesus is more than we have from any other historical figure from that time period. I smell special pleading.

2. Christian mythology doesn't count as "proof".

Using question-begging epithets to describe the New Testament doesn’t count as a valid argument.

3. The Christians themselves have never told a coherent story in the first place, let alone provided any reason to believe it.

This seems to be a poorly worded attempt at poisoning the well. Christianity is remarkably united on their Christology, so apparently the New Testament does present a coherent picture of the Christ.

4. The picture gets even murkier when you look at Christian beliefs of the first few centuries.

This assertion would actually require some information to back it up. As it stands now it is meaningless.

So either:

False dichotomy in 3….2….1….

1. Jesus was an insignificant rabbi that nobody paid any attention to and who wrote nothing of himself and his own teachings and, against all odds, was deified with fanciful legends, except that nobody could agree on what he said, taught or did, including what are now considered canonical sources, never mind all the myriad "heterodox Christians" who were so divergent as to make modern Christianity vs. Islam look like petty theological hair-splitting, so good luck ever knowing anything about him.

Nice run-on. I assume you’re referring to the gospels created by the Gnostics which date to between 100-250 years later than the four gospels of Jesus? The early church viewed only the four gospels we accept today as legitimate from the very beginning.

2. He's an urban legend.

Or he is a historical figure accurately described in the four gospels which is the historically accepted view today. People do not fabricate a person in order to die horrible deaths for what they know to be a lie.

1. You're using folklore to prove mythology.
We're all familiar with the classic Hollywood imagery of Christians being tortured and killed by dastardly Roman pagans and yet they held their head high and looked forward to being united with their celestial savior (*cue the swelling orchestral music to enhance the drama*). Got any proof that it happened outside Christian folklore?

Nice try. The martyrdom and persecution of Christians in Rome is a historical fact establish by the New Testament, the writings of the Church fathers, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Eusebius. The burden of proof is actually upon you to refute the historically accepted position. This is how we have to deal with Holocaust deniers.

David Koresh. The Heaven's Gate cult. Jim Jones. The list goes on. Modern day cults where leaders and followers alike lay down their lives for absolutely crazy beliefs. And these things happen today. You think Judea of the first few centuries, with all the superstitions of the primitive world, would be any less prone to this kind of crazy behavior?

Prove that anyone in Waco or Jonestown who died believed that what they were dying for was false or else my argument still stands.

To dismiss modern cultists as crazy but early Christians as "knowing the truth" is classic special pleading.

I have done no such thing. To deny the historical fact that Jesus existed while accepting the existence of far less attested historical figures is special pleading though.