Christians - What would you do if it were discovered Jesus never existed?

[Minimalist]

Not sure what your point here is. Are you trying to say that Jesus was never seen as an earthly figure by the early Christians because ... look what these irrelevant texts about ancient Greek mythological characters say!!!

Xtians who claim to accept the bullshit story that the church later put out must address the problem that "paul," allegedly the first writer, doesn't know shit from shinola about the earthly jesus story.  He never heard of Pilate, Joseph, Mary, Caiaphas, Nazareth, virgin births, miracles, sayings, or parables.  He mentions that he learned the story through revelation on numerous occasions.  The epistles which are clearly pseudoepigraphic can be dismissed in total as later propaganda which means that one need only look at the interpolations made into the so-called "authentic" pauline writings.  Paul's 'jesus' is a space cadet operating in an other-wordly realm.

Later xtians took the bare bones story and back-dated it to the early first century and set it in Palestine.  They wrote a historical novel to fool people.  "Mark," cleverly, even offers an explanation as to why no one heard the tale before:

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

That's the original ending of 'mark' and it explains why decades had gone by and the story did not spread....because the women were chickenshit and said nothing.  Of course, somehow, we then have to ignore the issue of how "mark" learned of the story.

The point is that what was later put forward for the godboy was commonplace in the Greek/Roman literature of the time.  It was very typical story telling and we don't need any special pleading - Oh, but JESUS really was the son of god - to explain the tale.  Just bullshit like all the other current myths.  In fact, Carrier draws the closest parallels to the Romulus story which was certainly known in the Roman empire.

[Minimalist]

Ok, but that only lends credence to the possibility of the story of his birth being borrowed from mythology.  Why would Celsus even bring it up if the man called Jesus didn't exist?  His inclusion of this passage lends credence to Jesus' existence in history and subsequently his non-belief in the Christians claims.  Celsus was an opponent of Early Christianity, so to see claims such as this are not surprising.  But think about it.  If Jesus didn't exist, why attack the stories attributed to him and not just attack his actual existence, or mention him at all?

It should be doubted whether these characters were said to have been given birth by virgins. I know according to the myth Danae was no virgin when she gave birth to Perseus.

Some people don't read their mythologies well.

And by the way, evidence tells us there was no virgin birth in the original Jesus story. So doesn't matter what other myths say about how their characters were born.

Oh, bullshit.  Read the fucking thing.

"But Zeus came to her in the form of golden rain, that streamed in through the ceiling and down into her womb."

How is this so different from your xtian shit?

"His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit."



If joseph had had any balls he'd have been out gathering rocks to stone the bitch.

[Minimalist]

 Why would Celsus even bring it up if the man called Jesus didn't exist?

Celsus was commenting on xtian stories which were then spreading.  He heaps so much scorn on the tales that it is impossible to say if he thought them true or not. 

Have you ever commented on a story you thought false?  Why do you find it so difficult to accept that Celsus could have done the same.  He was a philosopher after all.

[Pyrrho]

So, one by one....







In case any one is wondering where they got their ideas from.

Ok, but that only lends credence to the possibility of the story of his birth being borrowed from mythology.  Why would Celsus even bring it up if the man called Jesus didn't exist?  His inclusion of this passage lends credence to Jesus' existence in history and subsequently his non-belief in the Christians claims.  Celsus was an opponent of Early Christianity, so to see claims such as this are not surprising.  But think about it.  If Jesus didn't exist, why attack the stories attributed to him and not just attack his actual existence, or mention him at all?

If someone plagiarizes Harry Potter and pretends it is original, I do not have to suddenly believe that Harry Potter is real to complain about it.

[loganonekenobi]

"My answer to your hypothetical is that I refuse to consider your hypothetical." How droll.


The hypothetical situation is that, for whatever reason, you have been successfully convinced that Jesus did not exist. That's the hypothetical. Whatever hypothetical evidence it would take, that's what you have. What that evidence actually entails is completely irrelevant to the situation because we're not asking what would convince you. We're wanting to know about you would do if you were hypothetically convinced, and your only response is to demand to know how you were hypothetically convinced. All you're doing is dodging the question by refusing to even remotely entertain the presented hypothesis.

But, again the best anyone could ever do is point to one understanding, or interpretation of Christ and say their is no evidence to substantiate this particular belief. What you seem to fail to grasp is that God is the sole reason for my belief. Not one religious interpretation or another. Meaning I do not rely on what one 'scholar' may say over what another may work to prove. God is my proof. I am not a lemming, I do not follow the crowd simply because the crowd is going in one direction or another. I have sought truth for a very long time and I have found it, and no one will ever be able to take that from me.

In other more simple words he won't, he can't, and he is not alone in these inablities. Remember critical thinking when in comes to the truly tough questions is dangerous to the believer. They fear it.
I smell chicken.

[Brian37]

What is "hypothetical"? There is no such thing as magic babies or zombie gods.

The only thing the existence of Christianity, or any religion for that matter, proves our species has a vivid imagination.

[GrandizerII]

It should be doubted whether these characters were said to have been given birth by virgins. I know according to the myth Danae was no virgin when she gave birth to Perseus.

Some people don't read their mythologies well.

And by the way, evidence tells us there was no virgin birth in the original Jesus story. So doesn't matter what other myths say about how their characters were born.

Oh, bullshit.  Read the fucking thing.

"But Zeus came to her in the form of golden rain, that streamed in through the ceiling and down into her womb."

How is this so different from your xtian shit?

"His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit."



If joseph had had any balls he'd have been out gathering rocks to stone the bitch.

The difference between the two stories is that one involves an act of penetration (sex) and the other doesn't. Read well. There is a purpose behind the later addition of the virgin birth to the story of Jesus., and it wasn't to copy other myths.

And you don't just quote what other people say the myth says. You quote directly from the myth itself if you want to provide evidence of what the myth says. Otherwise, comes off as disingenuous.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, but that only lends credence to the possibility of the story of his birth being borrowed from mythology.  Why would Celsus even bring it up if the man called Jesus didn't exist?  His inclusion of this passage lends credence to Jesus' existence in history and subsequently his non-belief in the Christians claims.  Celsus was an opponent of Early Christianity, so to see claims such as this are not surprising.  But think about it.  If Jesus didn't exist, why attack the stories attributed to him and not just attack his actual existence, or mention him at all?

If someone plagiarizes Harry Potter and pretends it is original, I do not have to suddenly believe that Harry Potter is real to complain about it.

Not necessarily, but the original could have been true as well. Harry Potter is an example of a story that's not real, sure, but that doesn't mean all stories plagiarized by false stories are false.

It's simple logic.

[MrsTRich]

sorry wrong person posting

[Drich]

But, again the best anyone could ever do is point to one understanding, or interpretation of Christ and say their is no evidence to substantiate this particular belief. What you seem to fail to grasp is that God is the sole reason for my belief. Not one religious interpretation or another. Meaning I do not rely on what one 'scholar' may say over what another may work to prove. God is my proof. I am not a lemming, I do not follow the crowd simply because the crowd is going in one direction or another. I have sought truth for a very long time and I have found it, and no one will ever be able to take that from me.

Which leads to a lot of circular thinking in your case, don't you think?

So to you, knowing the truth and standing by it despite popular belief is circular reason in your world? Does that mean your willingness to believe something is true largly depends on what others think to be true? What if the vast majority of society thought the Jews were sub human plague on society and had 'scientific proof' that they were genetic cast offs and were just a drain on resources? would you believe this without question?