[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[Abaddon_ire]

If my claims are unsupported, you'll need to show contemporaneous accounts (meaning accounts written during his purported lifetime) of a figure who corresponds to the Jesus of the Gospel narrative.

You can, of course, list whatever accounts you think would support an historic Jesus.  I only asked that you not do so because these (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc) have been refuted so often that it becomes tiresome.

If being frequently written about is a basis for historicity, then King Arthur and Robin Hood are historic figures.  But perpetuation of the Jesus myth isn't all that hard to explain.  It perpetuated in the same way that any other religion does.  Are you claiming that the figures in Greek mythology and Hinduism are historic?

But I don't think the Jesus myth is a conspiracy in the sense you seem to be using the word.  I suspect that the great majority of Christians sincerely believe in an historic Jesus and aren't trying to fool anybody about it, which would seem to be required for this to be a conspiracy.

Boru

The historical Jesus is pretty well documented.

That is dishonestly misleading. And I think you know why.

 I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist.

Really? Then you have not been looking. Richard Carrier springs to mind.

 Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Sheesh. Those gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What made you think they were?

The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians.

Nope.

 No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period.

So what? Just because you refuse to look means nothing. Second, there is nothing unusual about a wandering apocalyptic preacher in the Levant at that time.

 That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.

It doesn't matter either way.

As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters.

Your gospels were written 40-200 years after the events depicted.

 Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character.

 In much the same way that jesus could simply be a wandering jewish apocalyptic rabbi (we know there were boatloads of those in the Levant at the time) upon whom later myths were built, King Arthur may merely be a Saxon Chieftain (we know there were boatloads of those in Saxon England at the time) upon whom later myths were built. The historicity of King Arthur remains an open question.

They have two things in common. Both may well actually be historical persons upon whom later mythologies were constructed, and secondly, I really don't care a lot about either.

At least the fiction arising from King Arthur is entertaining. The jesus fiction is merely dull, unimaginative and internally inconsistent.

In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.  

Thanks

Max

King Arthur and jesus are very similar cases. Both were likely real, historical people. Both have had a crapton of mythology heaped upon them post mortem. Both may be amalgams of multiple characters in play in their own times.

For example, Eleazar ben Simon was a contemporary of jesus and being raised in Galilee. Might even have me jesus for all we know. But he is not in doubt as a historical figure. He was highly ranked in the priesthood, led a war against Rome and generally ticked more boxes than jesus as a Messiah figure.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the jesus myth was a problem, then perhaps mo shouldn't have used it as the basis of his own grift.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If my claims are unsupported, you'll need to show contemporaneous accounts (meaning accounts written during his purported lifetime) of a figure who corresponds to the Jesus of the Gospel narrative.

You can, of course, list whatever accounts you think would support an historic Jesus.  I only asked that you not do so because these (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc) have been refuted so often that it becomes tiresome.

If being frequently written about is a basis for historicity, then King Arthur and Robin Hood are historic figures.  But perpetuation of the Jesus myth isn't all that hard to explain.  It perpetuated in the same way that any other religion does.  Are you claiming that the figures in Greek mythology and Hinduism are historic?

But I don't think the Jesus myth is a conspiracy in the sense you seem to be using the word.  I suspect that the great majority of Christians sincerely believe in an historic Jesus and aren't trying to fool anybody about it, which would seem to be required for this to be a conspiracy.

Boru

The historical Jesus is pretty well documented.  I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist.  Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians.  No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period.  That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.

As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters.  Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character.  In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.  

Thanks

Max

Where is the documentation for an historical Jesus?  Historians and theologians have been looking for this for centuries.  Failing to find it, they've made the same mistake you're making - wishful thinking.

But the individuals I mentioned were not contemporaries of Jesus, which is what I asked you to provide. You can't point to authors I said were not contemporaneous with Jesus and cite them as contemporaries.  It's a brute fact that there are NO writings of Jesus until well after his purported death.  You'd think that a wandering preacher who performed miracles, drew crowds of thousands, and got into trouble with the authorities would have gotten some sort of mention in official channels.  There's nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

When I mentioned Arthur and Robin Hood, it wasn't a conflation, it was a comparison.  Yes, it's probably true that both of them started out as folklore, but I don't think that strengths your argument.  The idea is that a imaginary person is written about to the point where people come to accept that person as having an historical basis.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

he historical Jesus is pretty well documented.  

No h's not 

I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist.

Define serious  and historians have blind spot when it comes to Jesus 

  Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

. Those aren't historical and those individuals don't support a historical Jesus 

 The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians.  

Nope 

No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period. 

Yes we have

 That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.

Tue and so 

As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...

It's not 

These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters

Thy wren't 

.  Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character.  In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.  

Nope it's spot on

[WinterHold]

If the jesus myth was a problem, then perhaps mo shouldn't have used it as the basis of his own grift.

The bible contains Roman porn, we even know that the book was manufactured by a corrupt council of corrupt Roman bishops:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. Hosius of Corduba, who was probably one of the papal legates, may have presided over its deliberations.[4][5]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father,[2] the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[3][7]

It's done. This whole discussion is done. The bible was mixed with the ideas of horny Romans and produced a porn book where the protagonist is not God; but a three headed half-man half-God half-angel

It's done. There is your evidence.

So the result is a part holy, part porn, authored under the effect of wine as it seems..it resulted in massive massacres and humanity lost a whole race because of it.

[maxolla]

The historical Jesus is pretty well documented.

That is dishonestly misleading. And I think you know why.

 I have not heard of any serious historians that refute the existence of Jesus but I’m sure they exist.

Really? Then you have not been looking. Richard Carrier springs to mind.

 Along with the historical writings of the individuals you mentioned are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Sheesh. Those gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What made you think they were?

The writings of these men have been verified by those contemporary historians.

Nope.  

 No where have I found controversy over his existence by historians of the period.

So what? Just because you refuse to look means nothing. Second, there is nothing unusual about a wandering apocalyptic preacher in the Levant at that time.

 That being said, historical data can always be called into question no matter the reputation of the historian.

It doesn't matter either way.

As for conflating the story of Jesus with King Arthur and Robin Hood...These are stories written hundreds of years after the events depicted and were known at the time as fictional characters.

Your gospels were written 40-200 years after the events depicted.

 Far less writings exist on, say king Arthur and it is widely known that he was a fictional character.

 In much the same way that jesus could simply be a wandering jewish apocalyptic rabbi (we know there were boatloads of those in the Levant at the time) upon whom later myths were built, King Arthur may merely be a Saxon Chieftain (we know there were boatloads of those in Saxon England at the time) upon whom later myths were built. The historicity of King Arthur remains an open question.

They have two things in common. Both may well actually be historical persons upon whom later mythologies were constructed, and secondly,  I really don't care a lot about either.

At least the fiction arising from King Arthur is entertaining. The jesus fiction is merely dull, unimaginative and internally inconsistent.

In short, your argument is based on a blatant false equivalence.  

Thanks

Max

King Arthur and jesus are very similar cases. Both were likely real, historical people. Both have had a crapton of mythology heaped upon them post mortem. Both may be amalgams of multiple characters in play in their own times.

For example, Eleazar ben Simon was a contemporary of jesus and being raised in Galilee. Might even have me jesus for all we know. But he is not in doubt as a historical figure. He was highly ranked in the priesthood, led a war against Rome and generally ticked more boxes than jesus as a Messiah figure.

Interesting points.  Never heard of Eleazar ben Simon before now.  Arguing the existence of historical figures is not something I have the time for.  The existence of, for instance Muhammad, Gandhi, as well as Jesus and his disciples is too well documented to refute.  Of course proving a negative is almost impossible in the first place.  That’s what I don’t get about atheism.  I understand agnosticism in that it claims to not know.  

My question is to the atheist, how do you know there is know God?

[R00tKiT]

If the jesus myth was a problem, then perhaps mo shouldn't have used it as the basis of his own grift.

The bible contains Roman porn, we even know that the book was manufactured by a corrupt council of corrupt Roman bishops:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. Hosius of Corduba, who was probably one of the papal legates, may have presided over its deliberations.[4][5]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father,[2] the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[3][7]

It's done. This whole discussion is done. The bible was mixed with the ideas of horny Romans and produced a porn book where the protagonist is not God; but a three headed half-man half-God.

It's done. There is your evidence.

So the result is a part holy, part porn, authored under the effect of wine as it seems..it resulted in massive massacres and humanity lost a whole race because of it.

You keep running away from me in every thread without answering the one question you should care about : Do you pray ? If so, how? And on what basis do you know that your prayer is correct and follows Muhammad's teachings?

Until you do that and inquire about your religion don't even bother talking about it to nonreligious people, you're doing more harm than good.

Open your eyes and know you're getting your own religion wrong.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Jesus and his disciples is too well documented to refute. 

Nope they are not i'm afraid regardless of your insistence 

Of course proving a negative is almost impossible in the first place

Nobody even bought that up

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've read the Bible more than once, and Roman porn is conspicuous by its absence. I'm sure I would have noticed something along the lines of

'And Germanicus of the Great Big Tonker did go him out among the Samarians.  And he did go unto the house of one and knocked on the door. And the handmaiden did open the door and sayeth unto him, Come ye into the house and helpeth me with my zippers, for the Master of the house is not at home and won't be back for hours, honestly.'

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

My question is to the atheist, how do you know there is know God

A claim i have never made