• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jesus Myth Claims [W:335]

Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, and when given 40 years after the events claimed, by mythmaking people with an agenda, even more so.
:roll:


Anyway, the first biography on Alexander the Great was written (Arrian and Plutarch), more than 400 years after his death!

The fabulous stories about Alexander did not develop until centuries after these two writers! What's your point?
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

:roll:


Anyway, the first biography on Alexander the Great was written (Arrian and Plutarch), more than 400 years after his death!

The fabulous stories about Alexander did not develop until centuries after these two writers! What's your point?

Even if the OP was not a heaping pile of presuppositional crap, what would this have to do with it?
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Even if the OP was not a heaping pile of presuppositional crap, what would this have to do with it?

Read RapidAlpaca's post. That was in response to him - which incidentally is also an appropriate response to manc's.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Can't you understand plain English?

Not the kind of dysentery you leave on the boards.

We never stipulated that Jesus existed or that your resurrection myth is true. Therefore, by default and like ever other claim, you must first prove his existence and resurrection prior to anyone wasting their precious time rebutting something that doesn't exist.

No one is going to waste time rebutting fantasy.

And your presuppositionalism betrays you yet again.:roll:

BS.

You can say, "I don't believe the Gospels," and that's one thing. But when you say it's a myth then you have to know what the elements of a myth are and then back up your claim, which you have yet to do. You're not going to get a free pass with your usual bs anymore.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Christians have been trying to shove christianity down our throats for the past 2,000 years. If christians weren't trying to infect our politics with it and impede societal and intellectual progress at every turn no one would have a problem.

Looks like someone's crammed a whole bunch of lies down your throat instead.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Jesus did certainly not have "magical powers" and not being able to prove something is proof of nothing.

I wonder why it is 99.9% of the theology threads are about Jesus? No one attacks Buddhism, in fact atheists openly practice it, only they call it Yoga. No one ever takes on the Sikh faith, now why is that as they carry swords..

No one ever says bad things about the clown prophet Mohamed, in fact the President of the United States has declared: "You cannot ridicule the prophet mohamed" but hundreds of atheits posts calling Jesus names\, suggesting he was a "magician" is not only allowed, but encouraged.

is that because Jesus poses a threat to you?

Because this forum is primarily full of Americans, people make threads either trying to prove the religion that they hold (primarily Christianity) or criticize the religion that is screwing up this country (also primarily Christianity). No other religion affects us on a daily basis nearly as much as Christianity.

Yes, it is riddled with issues we must study and comprehend, however I take the lack of so called proof of God and Jesus as proof....as God' primary goal is that we make our own choice, from the heart to have faith in him. If we had proof, absolute, we would not need faith, which is our gift to Him.

And yet this god would know exactly how much proof would sway us in either direction. This god is either choosing to provide or withhold that proof, and so is deciding for us whether or not we'll believe. We can't possibly be making our own choices.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

:roll:


Anyway, the first biography on Alexander the Great was written (Arrian and Plutarch), more than 400 years after his death!

The fabulous stories about Alexander did not develop until centuries after these two writers! What's your point?

Yet, the references to Alexander the great were in his life time... and, we actually ahve the tablets that mention him, and know the exact date the tablet was inscribed too..
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

A number of atheists and unbelievers in these forums make the comment that Jesus and/or the resurrection are myths.

I'd like to see them back up that claim with some solid arguments. Cite the elements of a myth and how long it takes for a myth to be established as such?

If someone claims Jesus was based on pagan myths/beliefs, state which one and lay out what was copied? Provide your historical / archaeological evidence to back up your claim, i.e. who first wrote about it, the date it was first seen in history, etc.

Either substantiate your myth claim(s) or understand you have zero credibility with them.

You do provide large targets for the debunkers although of course you and a couple of others on the forum will never, ever accept reality.

"Cite the elements of a myth" This is easy, just use the online dictionary: Myth -- noun a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

I think you meant to ask: "how long it takes for a myth to be established as true?" The story of John Frum tells us that it can take place within 10 - 15 years. For Ned Ludd, it took about 30 years.

The concept of Jesus as a divine being born of a virgin human mother is not derived from a single predecessor myth but is rather a melding of multiple tales, religious beliefs and changes occurring within Judaism, at least partially driven by what was seen as the oppression of the Roman overlords in Palestinia.

In a post following this OP, tosca 1 provided us with the usual apologetic nonsense and irrelevant material that seems to be the fall back position of the True Believers. Citing Thallus and Phlegon for an eclipse and earthquake taking place at the time of the crucifixion is probably not a good idea as there are no secular records of an earthquake nor zombies rising from their graves (Matthew 27:52) at that time. A couple hundred years later, Julius Africanus, while quoting Thallus, admitted an eclipse was impossible so the darkness must have been some miraculous action - in other words just more mythology for the rational.

The academic debate in regards to Jesus has now come down to those who say, "Yes, there was a guy named Yeshua, a relatively educated Jewish radical who wandered around Israel, preaching and prophesying as others had done before his time and others after his death continued." and the group that says "Totally mythological dude, created by that guy Paul, who was also a Jewish radical influenced by the society in which he lived and the changes taking place in his Jewish faith."
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Not the kind of dysentery you leave on the boards.



BS.

You can say, "I don't believe the Gospels," and that's one thing. But when you say it's a myth then you have to know what the elements of a myth are and then back up your claim, which you have yet to do. You're not going to get a free pass with your usual bs anymore.

A myth is a story from long ago. The bible is a collection of stories from long ago. Stories from the same time period are considered to be myths.
Just because the christian gospels are myths that you happen to believe, it does not make them fact. They are considered to be myth until proven otherwise.

Therefore you cannot, as you have done in the OP and many times in other threads, presuppose them to be correct and then ask for rebuttals. Classic logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

A claim is presumed to be false until proven otherwise. Proof of claim against a hypothetical fact such as you propose in the OP, is a waste of time.

Your presuppositionalism has failed you yet again. :2wave:
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

A number of atheists and unbelievers in these forums make the comment that Jesus and/or the resurrection are myths.

I'd like to see them back up that claim with some solid arguments. Cite the elements of a myth and how long it takes for a myth to be established as such?

If someone claims Jesus was based on pagan myths/beliefs, state which one and lay out what was copied? Provide your historical / archaeological evidence to back up your claim, i.e. who first wrote about it, the date it was first seen in history, etc.

Either substantiate your myth claim(s) or understand you have zero credibility with them.

well the resurrection is a myth all the magic is since we don't have an immortal guy with a bunch of holes stuck in him running around

all we do have is the word of people who wanted you to become Christian
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

You do provide large targets for the debunkers although of course you and a couple of others on the forum will never, ever accept reality.

Not your version of it.

"Cite the elements of a myth" This is easy, just use the online dictionary: Myth -- noun a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

I think you meant to ask: "how long it takes for a myth to be established as true?" The story of John Frum tells us that it can take place within 10 - 15 years. For Ned Ludd, it took about 30 years.

Longer. It takes until that generation has passed. Otherwise there's still people around who would have known the truth.

And you know what's missing from the 'Jesus isn't real' crowd? Historical 1st century works that debunk the Gospels.

The concept of Jesus as a divine being born of a virgin human mother is not derived from a single predecessor myth but is rather a melding of multiple tales, religious beliefs and changes occurring within Judaism, at least partially driven by what was seen as the oppression of the Roman overlords in Palestinia.

The foundations of Christianity have their beginnings in Old Testament Judaism (the Tanakh), and the person of Jesus Christ, and nothing else. Those are the only two things that have legs. Nothing else has a credible foundation. If you think there is something else, you'll need to substantiate it in history.

The academic debate in regards to Jesus has now come down to those who say, "Yes, there was a guy named Yeshua, a relatively educated Jewish radical who wandered around Israel, preaching and prophesying as others had done before his time and others after his death continued." and the group that says "Totally mythological dude, created by that guy Paul, who was also a Jewish radical influenced by the society in which he lived and the changes taking place in his Jewish faith."

The "created by Paul" crowd is full of baloney.

There's also the "Jesus was real and a miracle worker" crowd who so far have the better evidence based on multiple, independent, historical accounts.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

A myth is a story from long ago. The bible is a collection of stories from long ago. Stories from the same time period are considered to be myths.
Just because the christian gospels are myths that you happen to believe, it does not make them fact. They are considered to be myth until proven otherwise.

Therefore you cannot, as you have done in the OP and many times in other threads, presuppose them to be correct and then ask for rebuttals. Classic logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

A claim is presumed to be false until proven otherwise. Proof of claim against a hypothetical fact such as you propose in the OP, is a waste of time.

Your presuppositionalism has failed you yet again. :2wave:

Not buying your sophomoric conclusions. You lose again.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Not buying your sophomoric conclusions. You lose again.

Wait ... he looses becuase you're not buying it? Really?
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

You do provide large targets for the debunkers although of course you and a couple of others on the forum will never, ever accept reality.

"Cite the elements of a myth" This is easy, just use the online dictionary: Myth -- noun a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

I think you meant to ask: "how long it takes for a myth to be established as true?" The story of John Frum tells us that it can take place within 10 - 15 years. For Ned Ludd, it took about 30 years.

The concept of Jesus as a divine being born of a virgin human mother is not derived from a single predecessor myth but is rather a melding of multiple tales, religious beliefs and changes occurring within Judaism, at least partially driven by what was seen as the oppression of the Roman overlords in Palestinia.

In a post following this OP, tosca 1 provided us with the usual apologetic nonsense and irrelevant material that seems to be the fall back position of the True Believers. Citing Thallus and Phlegon for an eclipse and earthquake taking place at the time of the crucifixion is probably not a good idea as there are no secular records of an earthquake nor zombies rising from their graves (Matthew 27:52) at that time. A couple hundred years later, Julius Africanus, while quoting Thallus, admitted an eclipse was impossible so the darkness must have been some miraculous action - in other words just more mythology for the rational.

The academic debate in regards to Jesus has now come down to those who say, "Yes, there was a guy named Yeshua, a relatively educated Jewish radical who wandered around Israel, preaching and prophesying as others had done before his time and others after his death continued." and the group that says "Totally mythological dude, created by that guy Paul, who was also a Jewish radical influenced by the society in which he lived and the changes taking place in his Jewish faith."

Here's the problem With the Virgin birth thing, there was no messianic precedant for a Virgin born messiah, and him being a bastard is attested by enemies of christianity as a polemic against christianity, in Sources in side the New testament and outside.

If you want to say the Virgin birth was made up (I believe it), the best thing would be to argue against him being born outside of wedlock, there was no precedant in judaism, and any pagan concepts simply don't fit, the matthew/luke Virgin birth narratives are NOTHING like the demigods from a sexual union between a god and a human, the Jewish concept of God at that time was not even in the same category as pagan concepts of the Divine realm.

As far as the time line of a myth, I don't think the time is the big issue, the issue is the nature of the narrative itself, in the synoptics, and even in John, there are tons of Things that simply don't fit in a myth narrative, why did Jesus for example get baptised by John? Why did he expect the end in his Lifetime? Why was he not respeted by any authority? Why do some of his saying conflict, on face value, With early Church theology? And so on, the synoptics simply don't read like myths at all.

There is 0 evidence that there was pagan mythelogical influence in the synoptics.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

John 3:36

I agree .... and .... I thought you were talking historical Jesus here .... Goodness me you're bad at apologetics.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

I agree .... and .... I thought you were talking historical Jesus here .... Goodness me you're bad at apologetics.

Racky - take a break from your inane drivel. This thread is about supporting myth claims. You want evidence for God/Jesus/the Bible go to that thread and quit derailing this one.
 
Re: Jesus Myth Claims

Racky - take a break from your inane drivel. This thread is about supporting myth claims. You want evidence for God/Jesus/the Bible go to that thread and quit derailing this one.

I'm not derailing it ... I'm Reading you're responses to People ... and pointing out ... they arn't reseponses, you're basically doing negative apologetics here ... trying to defend the faith but not being able to, so just end up name calling and saying "don't buy it" which basically makes you look rediculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom