Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Pizza]

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth and he was like the one described in the Bible - what evidence do you have of a different character?

Historians don't do this.  Historians don't just say, "this text says so, so it happened." Just look up the Socratic problem. No serious historian says, "The historical Socrates must be like the one described in Plato's dialogues because Plato said so- what evidence do you have that he wasn't?" What evidence do you have he was? The Bible?
The problem is trying to find the man behind the myth. Am I to think the myth of George Washington is the same as the man? Parson Weems claims George Washington cut down a cherry tree - I guess I'll just take his word for it.

[CapnAwesome]

Same old amateurish mythicist apologetic as always.

Why the fuck is this so hard to understand. The 'Jesus' described by word and deed in the NT never fucking existed; his character is as much myth as Apollo. This is the Jesus Christians proclaim existed. The argument is that some first century rabble-rouser was put to death by crucifixion by a Roman prefect in a territory on the very edge of the empire in a time where a message between Rome and Jerusalem took at best weeks while accepting and adhering as much as possible to local custom; whoopdie fucking doo.

That strung-up Jesus asshole never raised Lazarus, walked on water, turned water into wine, fed a multitude with magic, nor presided over a herd of possessed cliff-diving pigs. Believing this dude Jesus did all this shit is the same as believing Abraham Lincoln really was a vampire slayer.

I agree with all the stuff you say, but for a moment lets say in a 1000 years people are talking about me and say that "Cap'n Awesome posted on Atheist forums, was a general badass, walked on water and his farts cured cancer." Would it really be accurate to say that I never existed?

[Aractus]

The consensus is that Mark was the original and that it was used as a boiler plate template for what followed.

No that isn't the "consensus". Perhaps you should look up what that word means, as well as what the two-source theory itself relates to... because it doesn't tell us anything about Paul's writings or about the gospel of John.

[robvalue]

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth and he was like the one described in the Bible - what evidence do you have of a different character?

Historians don't do this.  Historians don't just say, "this text says so, so it happened." Just look up the Socratic problem. No serious historian says, "The historical Socrates must be like the one described in Plato's dialogues because Plato said so- what evidence do you have that he wasn't?" What evidence do you have he was? The Bible?
The problem is trying to find the man behind the myth. Am I to think the myth of George Washington is the same as the man? Parson Weems claims George Washington cut down a cherry tree - I guess I'll just take his word for it.

Right. I can't possibly provide evidence that two or more people are rolled into the Jesus character, but I think it's hopelessly improbable that this isn't the case. Even if it's a few details, or a single story, the idea that the one single HJ (whether he was real or fictional) would be faithfully preserved by oral stories without anyone else possibly ever creeping in seems ridiculous to me.

It's just my opinion, based on common sense and the nature of oral stories. The default position that the oral myth is pure after 30 years or whatever does not seem reasonable.

[Pizza]

I'm not on team Jesus myth. However, I don't think comparing Jesus to Socrate or whoever else is helpful. We need judge these claims on a case by case basis. Historians have to be skeptical of their sources whether the sources make fantastical claims and mundane ones.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

They probably doubt the existence of L Ron Hubbard, Albert Einstein, and Adolf Hitler as well.

L Ron Hubbard, Albert Einstein, and Adolf Hitler = The father, the son, and the holy ghost.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's easy for the believers to prove that Jesus existed. All they have to do is to do what he said believers should be able to do because they have faith in him. So get barefoor and walk on water across the nearest large lake. Tell a mountain to jump into the sea and have it obey your command. Drink a cup full of poison without any ill effect. Go to the nearest hospital and heal all of the sick by simply touching them with your hand. Fast for 40 days and 40 nights. Drive the demons out of the crazy politicians. Call manna down from heaven to feed the hungry for the next 100 years. Clean all of the trash out of the oceans. Call forth the giant golden cube and have it orbit the Earth. Show us the devil.

[Aractus]

See here's the problem. Instead of constructing good arguments, you're making rubbish ones that are exaggerated and very easily dismissed not just by Christians but by non-Christians as well.

The Bible doesn't imply that other people in other situations without Jesus physically present can walk across water.

Jesus tells his disciples they could move the mountains, a Christian could well argue that power was limited to the 12 since the Bible doesn't say other Christians will be able to do it also.

The Bible doesn't say you can drink poison and not be harmed it is an addition.

The Bible doesn't say that anyone but God can supply manna.

The Bible doesn't say you can heal people by touching them: It says you can heal daemon possession through prayer but it doesn't say that you can heal disease caused by other means.

And finally, you don't get to set the standard of proof just as a creationist doesn't get to set the standard of proof for evolution. A creationist will keep asking for the next in-between fossil every time you provide one; and your argument is no different. We're talking in this thread about whether there was a historical Jesus - not whether he was a supernatural being that channelled the power of the Holy Spirit.

[downbeatplumb]

See here's the problem. Instead of constructing good arguments, you're making rubbish ones that are exaggerated and very easily dismissed not just by Christians but by non-Christians as well.

The Bible doesn't imply that other people in other situations without Jesus physically present can walk across water.

Jesus tells his disciples they could move the mountains, a Christian could well argue that power was limited to the 12 since the Bible doesn't say other Christians will be able to do it also.

The Bible doesn't say you can drink poison and not be harmed it is an addition.

The Bible doesn't say that anyone but God can supply manna.

The Bible doesn't say you can heal people by touching them: It says you can heal daemon possession through prayer but it doesn't say that you can heal disease caused by other means.

And finally, you don't get to set the standard of proof just as a creationist doesn't get to set the standard of proof for evolution. A creationist will keep asking for the next in-between fossil every time you provide one; and your argument is no different. We're talking in this thread about whether there was a historical Jesus - not whether he was a supernatural being that channelled the power of the Holy Spirit.

True but the historical Jesus has never been proven either.
Was there one, maybe, but there is no more proof for an actual non-magical Jesus as there is for a non-magical Harry Potter.
So it comes down to a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Same old amateurish mythicist apologetic as always.

Why the fuck is this so hard to understand. The 'Jesus' described by word and deed in the NT never fucking existed; his character is as much myth as Apollo. This is the Jesus Christians proclaim existed. The argument is that some first century rabble-rouser was put to death by crucifixion by a Roman prefect in a territory on the very edge of the empire in a time where a message between Rome and Jerusalem took at best weeks while accepting and adhering as much as possible to local custom; whoopdie fucking doo.

That strung-up Jesus asshole never raised Lazarus, walked on water, turned water into wine, fed a multitude with magic, nor presided over a herd of possessed cliff-diving pigs. Believing this dude Jesus did all this shit is the same as believing Abraham Lincoln really was a vampire slayer.

Well, I don't see any vampires around, do you?!