Why does it matter, BTW you are arguing for divinity, you need to provide the evidence here.
For my point it doesn’t matter if it was the spaghetti monster.
Here is a list of Mormon prophetso whom have attested to the existence of Moroni, while the name is less common it does show how a completely manufacturered individual can be viewed as having existed in a similar fashion to Jesus.
Each individual on that list has been considered to have the power of revelation.
The accounts of people worshipping a guy named Joshua that they call Jesus after his death proves nothing about the existence of a historical person.
15,372,337 people believe in the existence of Moroni today, several hundred believed in him during the life of the myth creator.
The previous claims that the existence of a sect provides any evidence of the historic existenceof the man.
That didn’t end well.
So you claim that Paul’s epistles and Luke’s Acts of the Apostles are complete fabrications?
And you need to provide some evidence of reading comprehension. I am a Jew; nowhere have I argued for divinity.
Ah…I feel you are not destinationed for a long life on this board. You may want to read the stickies if you want to debate.
I have no reason to believe otherwise. Can you show the existence of deamons which can be transferred to pigs, the existence of a census which required people to go to their ancestors home town to be counted or a zombie uprising after Jesus has risen?
There is no contemporary evidence of the man’s existence. I am sure that there was a man named Loki once and heck he may even had sex with a horse but I will not believe that he existed or that he was a changeling god because of the accounts written in the Norse sagas either.
Again, nowhere have I argued for the divinity of Jesus. Does this forum support the blatant fabrication of positions?
That is not what I asked.
It does, because your point goes beyond the application of a definition, to a clear intention that the application constitute some kind of disparagement.
No, I was being descriptive, unless you can provide evidence these visions being more than the effect of a mental defect it holds true. The conversations Paul had were delusional. If find that claim false provide a cite. This is a debate and I will not coddle to common beliefs when it makes a debate on the evidence impossible.
No, you are attempting to build a straw man, I said that there is no evidence to support that they were not based on either dilutions or fabrications. If you have evidence that this is not true provide it. You are either making the claim that they are not or you are trying to build a straw man argument.
If you cannot provide a direct cite to provide evidence I will assume your argument is so week that you have to resort to obtuse non-arguments that avoid my core point.
And here I will provide cites, even if I can never prove a negative.
Delusions of grandeur have several causes, which are well known and documented.
[
](Delusions Of Grandeur: Causes, Symptoms, Treatment - MentalHealthDaily)
And in fact:
Sorry: I cannot find a direct link directly to the DSM
Yahushua was an extremely common name back then, there may have even been multiple people suffering from schizophrenia whom were crucified at the same time that had the same name and multiple may have even thought they were Christ. Heck I have several people who believe their are Christ living within 4 blocks of my house even if none are named Jesus there are two named Bill.
I have no reason to believe that the “Jesus” as described in the bible ever existed as any person watching crucifixion could have suffered from delusions of grandeur and created the entire story just as Joseph Smith created the story of Moroni. As the tiny amount of external references to him are after his death and relating to the interactions with his cult I see no way to give any credence to the fact that he was a specific real man.
There may be a tendency to lean towards that explanation to avoid insulting believers but after looking thorough this thread I see no compelling evidence that would discount the entire story being created with zero interaction. And with the more modern evidence of Xenu and Moroni among others I find it more likely that it was created from scratch at some point.
If I missed such cites and information please point them out, but I find the obtuse tautology tiresome.
Unfortunately, this is how too debates over the historical Jesus go. Too many people can’t separate their strong feelings, either pro or anti Christianity.
I find it futile to engage someone whose mind is so obviously closed.
It is understandable in some senses. Obviously the reason I used Paul as an example is because the First Epistle to the Thessalonians are the earliest documents based on consensus.
I do feel that the reasoning behind the general consensus that he existed to be weak at best. The criterion of embarrassment is extremely weak. It is very possible that some follower of John the Baptist, whom I do think probably did exist, created the story of Jesus and his resurrection to continue their sect. The criterion of discontinuity also seems absurd to me as I see the drift in modern forms which seems more common than a unification of practices.
I am making no claim if this was done in a fraudulent way or if a follower’s delusions were directed by it. There is no evidence either way but in my mind it would be plausible to create a new leader which could not suffer the same limitation in their ministry as John suffered.
To be clear, I am not saying I ascribe to the “Jesus Myth” theory just that I know of no credible evidence that he was an actual specific man. The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims and I know that millions of christians have been searching for proof for thousands of years.
I am not sure why I keep looking here for someone to change that when it would be headline news.
Apparently true.
The truth is that critical Biblical scholars agree that a historical Jesus most likely existed.
However, unless someone comes up with the long form birth certificate, it’s not going to be enough for the mythicists, who mostly seem to be on an anti religious crusade. The irony is that they take far greater leaps of logic while busying themselves fighting the Good Fight[sup]TM[/sup].
Damn those mythicists, to state openly that Jesus never existed is to automatically lump oneself into the same sort who denies the world is over 6,000 years old!!!
However your claim is not as true as you think. The general consensus of “historicists” or “critical Biblical scholars” is that someone Named Joshua who claimed to be christ was baptized by John and Crucified.
But this is not a “truth” for mythicists nor historicists and you are completely ignoring those of us who are in the ranks of the historicity agnostic.
I wish the papers from this book were online, but your claim that it is settled is not true.
The current evidence for a historical jesus is fragile and it is hard to review it due to the emotion involved. If you have clear evidence to move me into the historicist camp please provide it. I am open to have my mind change but the more I read the more agnostic I become.
So you are agnostic regarding whether or not the works of Paul and Acts are complete fabrications?