Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?

[Zone]

Was Thor? Was Marduk? Was Osiris? Was Shiva?

No but then they're aren't humans living in a specific period of history we can pinpoint they're gods/fabled heroes in some kind of dream time. We know where abouts Jesus lived when he was born and when he died you don't get those details with Apollo.

[catfish]

The "sign" that a maiden would give birth was to be a sign that the current seige would cease, it wasn't about the messiah.
A virgin birth would also break the lineage of the Messiah, hence Yeshua wouldn't have been a decendant of David as predicted.
The jews were racists, Yeshua being born in Bethleham was because they didn't like Nazarenes. (they hated a lot of tribes back then)
.

---

I know you guys hate quotes, but this also speaks volumes to what has happened:

1 Timothy 1:3-7 New International Version (NIV)

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
.

---

And this...

1 Timothy 1:1 New International Version (NIV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

Notice how God is their savior and Yeshua is separate?
.

[ThomM]

Actually - the MYTH of the "jesus" is far more obvious to Jews because the stories about him show a very definite lack of understanding of the Jewish religion as well as the Jewish law at that time.

First - the bible goes out of its way to show that Joseph had NO marital relations with Mary until after the birth of the boy. Under jewish law - it would have been heresy to claim that the boy's father was "god" - and it would have required Mary to actually marry the real father of the boy. Of course - she would have been stoned to death for the heresy. AS a child conceived out of wedlock - the christ would not have been trained as a teacher of the religion - and would not have been given access to the temples.

Second - Jews of the time would have KNOWN that the christ was a heretic - and not the messiah - right away. Of the many prophecies of the messiah was to rebuild the Jerusalem temple the third time - but it had no yet nor was destroyed during that time. The messiah is also to bring all people together under the JEWISH religion - and have them admit that all others are wrong. Again - as a heretic - the christ would have been stoned to death.

Third - the claim of a NEW COVENANT is heresy. Jews believe that ALL of the words of their god are perfect and that he would NOT change or go back on the promises of the messiah. To claim that the god "changed its mind" is also heresy - more stoning.

Fourth - The temple of Jerusalem is like the Vatican of Catholicism - and only the highest priests of the religion could teach there. The christ would NOT have been allowed to do so even nearby, and going after the money changers would have also resulted in a stoning. Remember - the jews did NOT consider the christ to be the son of their god - and still do not.

There are lots of other places where the christ does things in direct conflict with the jewish religion (Working on the Sabbath among them) - again - to the point that it is simply unlikely that such a person would have lived to be crucified.

[catfish]

And my "religion" in a nutshell is this:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
.

---

James 1:27
King James Version (KJV)

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

.

[Minimalist]

Was Thor? Was Marduk? Was Osiris? Was Shiva?

No but then they're aren't humans living in a specific period of history we can pinpoint they're gods/fabled heroes in some kind of dream time. We know where abouts Jesus lived when he was born and when he died you don't get those details with Apollo.

Yet you insist that "jesus" was? In spite of the fact that no one living at the time ever heard of him?

Maybe Pliny classed things like resurrection and miracle stories as superstition so didn't bother to mention them.

He mentions hymns and communal meals but fails to mention that they worship a guy who was executed by a Roman magistrate? Really? Don't you think a couple of Roman aristocrats would have found that amusing?

[catfish]

Yet you insist that "jesus" was? In spite of the fact that no one living at the time ever heard of him?

Is this the "I can't see it so it isn't so" line of reasoning?
.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't really think the existence of Jesus is that important. You basically have two options.

A. Jesus is entirely fictional, all the miracles associated with him are imaginary because he is imaginary
B. Jesus is a highly fictionalized account of a real person, all the miracles associated with him are imaginary because he is highly fictionalized.

To me there isn't a significant enough difference between a highly fictionalized person 2000 years dead and an entirely fictionalized person made up 1940 years ago to really concern myself with.

[Cato]

Is this the "I can't see it so it isn't so" line of reasoning?

No, it's the no fucking evidence; therefore, it's bullshit line of reasoning.

[catfish]

Is this the "I can't see it so it isn't so" line of reasoning?

No, it's the no fucking evidence; therefore, it's bullshit line of reasoning.

Since you don't have evidence... BULLSHIT!!!

Seriously man, think of what you just did there, get back to me if you can resolve that, mmm'kay?
.

[Minimalist]

Yet you insist that "jesus" was? In spite of the fact that no one living at the time ever heard of him?

Is this the "I can't see it so it isn't so" line of reasoning?
.

This is the no-one-ever-saw-Santa-Claus-either, line of reasoning.

Much in common your jesus and Santa. Except Santa is never a prick.