Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?

[Zone]

Except Paul never actually met jesus did he.

He met him in a vision but that probably doesn't count. But he wrote about Jesus within living memory of his death when there was a small Christian community already present. Also Jesus had living relatives around at that point, his brother James founded a rival sect of traditional Jewish Christianity to Pauline Christianity. Paul had the idea of exporting the faith to the pagans so he was the co-founder of Christianity as we know it today. Also supposedly Paul worked a few miracles himself during his ministry, he he made the lame walk and all that business. He was on a lower power level (under 9000) to Jesus though. So there isn't any reason to think that Jesus never even existed, even opponents to Christianity at the time never suggested that they just said he wasn't divine.

And in fact there are NO accounts of his life by first person witnesses.
A bit odd for some one who is supposed to have affected thousands in his ministry.

It's because Jesus didn't have his own scribe like Mohammed and back then people relied more on oral transmission. Different communities of Christians compilled different oral accounts into their gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke were the earliest ones written, they agree on some parts and differ on others. There was in fact a community called the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls taught much of the same material Jesus taught during his ministry. So that most likely be where Jesus originated. Also wandering spiritual healers, magic and exorcists were common back so then so Jesus or Yeshua would have been part of that crowd.

[Question Mark]

The primary reason is mostly to educate people on the truth. People are actually of the opinion that a 2000 year old zombie comes to their bed sides and wakes them up int he morning and gives them a reason for living. It's just sad, especially when they impose that belief on someone else.

Imagine how far ahead humanity would have been if at the time of Galileo the church had said "Ok, you're right, the earth does rotate around the sun".

What did they do instead, "We are putting you in prison for your own safety because the masses hate the truth".

I warn that criticism of labels really should be gullibility based and not label based. Humans have always been superstitious.

Indeed. The Family Guy episode where Stewie and Brian go to an alternate universe where christianity never happened was no doubt exaggerated, but I do hold some sympathy for it, you know?
And some theists hold the fact of things like what happened to Galileo as evidence that God is really there, because we weren't ready for the truth yet, and the church was protecting us from the pain of discovery. The church knew Galileo was right.

Firstly, that argument is absurd because it was in fact the church covering their own sovereignty, and second it proves nothing other than the fact that someone had figured out that the solar system follows a heliocentric gravitational model. To attribute anything from that alone as to what the social effects would have been is a complete fallacy.

[Brian37]

Its always healthy to talk about our Lord, be it for or against Him. I don't see any reason why Atheists shouldn't talk about Jesus Christ?

And equally productive to talk about the Tooth Fairy.

It is a waste of time to talk about either, but at the same time it is not.

Talking about magic baby Jesus IS the same as talking about the tooth fairy and just as productive.

The problem isn't that we should have this debate, the problem is that those who advocate any invisible being don't understand why we have to have this debate. If humans didn't invent gods we wouldn't have to focus on their superstitions. But if we don't the Kool Aid can poison the meme ecosystem.

[Minimalist]

But he wrote about Jesus within living memory of his death when there was a small Christian community already present.

A story which does not survive close examination, either.

Justin Martyr, writing to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 never heard of any "Paul." He never mentions any of the alleged gospel accounts, either.

Curious, eh?

[Question Mark]

But he wrote about Jesus within living memory of his death when there was a small Christian community already present.

A story which does not survive close examination, either.

Justin Martyr, writing to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 never heard of any "Paul." He never mentions any of the alleged gospel accounts, either.

Curious, eh?

In history, "in living memory" doesn't equate to "contemporary".

[Zone]

But he wrote about Jesus within living memory of his death when there was a small Christian community already present.

A story which does not survive close examination, either.

Justin Martyr, writing to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 never heard of any "Paul." He never mentions any of the alleged gospel accounts, either.

Curious, eh?

Christianity isn't some kind of a grand conspiracy you know Paul certainly existed, he wrote Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon. Ephesians, Colossians, and 2nd Thessalonians were likely written by his followers after his death. Just because founders of a religion existed it automatically mean that the religion is true. Joesph Smith and L Ron Hubbard existed as well.

[Minimalist]

you know Paul certainly existed

I know no such thing. "Paul" seems as fictional as jesus.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm


BTW, mohammad as the alleged "messenger" seems no more soundly based in history than "paul."


(And before you get your knickers in a twist remember that we have no original manuscripts by "paul.")

[Question Mark]

A story which does not survive close examination, either.

Justin Martyr, writing to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 never heard of any "Paul." He never mentions any of the alleged gospel accounts, either.

Curious, eh?

Christianity isn't some kind of a grand conspiracy you know Paul certainly existed, he wrote Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon. Ephesians, Colossians, and 2nd Thessalonians were likely written by his followers after his death. Just because founders of a religion existed it automatically mean that the religion is true. Joesph Smith and L Ron Hubbard existed as well.

It's actually quite easy to argue that Christianity is a grand conspiracy, depending how you define "conspiracy".
If it means hiding truth from the masses in order to manipulate the general masses towards a truth that benefits the organisation, then christianity is certainly a grand conspiracy.

[Confused Ape]

Have just looked up Justin Martyr (AD 100–ca.165)

Some time afterwards, he chanced upon an old man, possibly a Palestinian or Syrian Christian,[8] in the vicinity of the seashore, who engaged him in a dialogue about God, and spoke of the testimony of the prophets as more reliable than the reasoning of philosophers. It was this argument which, Justin avers, kindled in him a love of Christ, and led him to embrace the Christian faith.[9] He was influenced in this by the fearless conduct of the Christians facing execution (Apol. 2:12).

This was a time when various Gnostic sects were around. Gnosticism

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge; Arabic: الغنوصية‎) is the thought and practice, especially of various sects of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries, distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis (knowledge).

Although some scholars still postulate pre-Christian gnosticism, no evidence has been found to date. It is now generally accepted that gnosticism developed into a coherent movement only in the second century CE.[3][4]

There were various Non-canonical gospels which didn't make it into the Bible.

In addition to the four canonical gospels, early Christians wrote other gospels that were not accepted into the canon, some of which are discussed below.

It's possible, then that Justin-Martyr could have been a Christian without ever hearing of Paul or the canonical gospels because there were a number of different Christian sects around at the time.

There is a bit of evidence that Pontius Pilate actually existed because of the Pilate Stone.

The Pilate Stone is the name given to a block (82 cm x 65 cm) of limestone with a carved inscription attributed to Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman-controlled province of Judaea from 26–36. The stone is significant because it is the only universally accepted archaeological find with an inscription mentioning the name "Pontius Pilatus" to date.[2][3]
It is likely that Pontius Pilate made his base at Caesarea Maritima where the stone was discovered, and occasionally went to Jerusalem when needed.[4]
The Pilate Stone is currently located at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.[5][6]

Pure speculation here. Jesus kept telling people to stop believing what the Pharisees said so he annoyed the establishment. The Pharisees did a deal with Pilate to get rid of him and Pilate agreed in order to keep the peace. Nobody bothered to write about it at the time because the only people who really cared were the Pharisees and a handful of followers who were Jesus's close companions. If he'd come back from the dead it would have caused a sensation across the Roman Empire so I think we can safely assume that the resurrection story got added on later.

[catfish]

I think was is quite telling about the narative are these verses...

Matthew 27:24-26
New International Version (NIV)

24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

I refuse to believe that a crowd of people who thought they were "in the right" would make such a statement that basically curses themselves and their children.
I suspect this was added sometime after the fact when conversion of the Roman citizens was desired. What Roman would convert to a religion in which the Romans themselves were responsible for murdering the founder?
.