There aren’t many people who have ever denied that there was a man named Yeshua living in Nazareth two thousand years ago, or that he said enough inspirational things to enough people that the Roman authorities thought their power was threatened. The atheists deny only the mystical, son of God stuff that was accreted later.
If there is no proof of a resurrection or miracles whether Jesus actually lived is really irrelevant. One should also note the number of Jesuses . . . Jesii, and would-be Messiahs there were during the period.
I’m curious exactly what constitutes “evidence” for a resurrection and/or miracles.
CMC fnord!
You made this claim: “Most of John’s work (or the person(s) who are now called “John”) appears to be an embellishment of earlier writers like Mark. If Mark didn’t provide enough detail to make the story complete, John supplied it, even though he wasn’t closer to the events than Mark. .”
**
That claim is false**. You obviously dont know much about the formation of the New Testament. There are three Synoptic Gospels, and yes at least one of them drew heavily on a earlier writer. John, however, is not a Synoptic Gospel and did not draw upon the other three.
Eyewitness testimony. Now, you can discount that testimony are biased or unreliable, sure. But like it or not, it is still 'evidence".
Name your eyewitnesses.
You’re stretching things here. I think it’s more likely than not that there was someone named Yeshua that the stories Paul told, and the gospels, were loosely based on.
I would not go so far as to say I think he said lots of inspirational things - I think those are much more likely to be glommed onto the legend in later years.
And the idea that the Roman authorities executed him because they thought their power was threatened is kind of ridiculous. Some hayseed apocalyptic prophet comes wandering into the city with a rag-tag band of followers, and the Romans felt threatened? Why would you say that?
Okay then, how did the legend start?
All it takes is one power-hungry, or paranoid, military ruler who can get the rest of the power structure to fall in line. It doesn’t matter if Jesus was really a threat, only that TPTB thought him one.
How is the burden on the atheists?
Saul of Tarsus took some acid*, went out for a ride, and had a vision. Jesus was a guy someone had mentioned to him, so that is who he imagined that he saw. The entire christian religion formed around Paul (Saul of Tarsus). His writings are amongst the oldest, possibly predating the gospels. The entire religion revolves around him – Jesus is just there on the drum kit.
*the grain fungus ergot produces a hallucinogenic chemical closely related to the precursor to LSD
You’re grasping at straws in an attempt to prove your religious hopefulness. From Gospel of John
Already did.
Well, yes, of course. All for Gospels recount the Life of Jesus. But John is NOT based upon the Synoptic Gospels.
*Sources
Rudolf Bultmann, in a seminal work published in 1941, argued that John’s sources were a hypothetical “Signs Gospel” listing Christ’s miracles, a revelation discourse, and a passion narrative. Bultmann’s work, combined with that of other scholars (the work of Raymond E. Brown was particularly influential in the English-speaking world), led to a scholarly consensus in the second half of the 20th century that the Gospel of John was independent of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, known as the “Synoptic Gospels.” This agreement broke down in the last decade of the century, and there are now many scholars who believe that John did know the Synoptics, especially Mark, while the hypothesis of a “signs” source has been increasingly undermined.[28]
But theories of either complete independence or complete dependence on the Synoptics are largely rejected in current scholarship: on the one hand, elements such as distinctive Johannine language, the lengthy discourses, and the prologue on the Logos, are clearly unique to John; on the other, John clearly shares a multitude of episodes with the other three.[29]
The most important sources used by the evangelist were the Jewish scriptures (the Tanakh, more or less identical with the Christian Old Testament), probably in the Greek translation. John quotes from them directly, references important figures from them, and uses narratives from them as the basis for several of the discourses. But the author was also familiar with non-Jewish sources: the Logos of the prologue (the Word that is with God from the beginning of creation) derives from both the Jewish concept of Lady Wisdom and from the Greek philosophers, while John 6 alludes not only to the exodus but also to Greco-Roman mystery cults, while John 4 alludes to Samaritan messianic beliefs.[30]*
Read bout the Synoptic gospels: Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia
Because nearly every scholar and historian says that the evidence is clear and there was a real Jesus. Saying that this person didnt exist is the extraordinary claim.
How many inspirational or witty quotes or stories are (falsely) attributed to Einstein or Mark Twain or Abraham Lincoln? Or to others? How many have staying power despite the benefit of modern technology to set us straight?
Sure, the actual people existed. They still didn’t say or do many of the things they’ve been attributed with. It happens to famous people who are alive right now - the amount of absolute and refutable BS reportedly said or done by celebrities but still widely believed is often astounding.
It would be more shocking if there were no embellishments or fabrications at all. And even more shocking if the more unbelievable quotes and stories weren’t the ones to propagate the fastest.
you seem confused - where do Atheists claim “Jesus” didn’t exist? Where in the definition of ‘Atheist’ is ‘Jesus’ mentioned?
Then why are some of the stories the same, but John’s version is more detailed, or just different in details?
No matter how you slice it, later writers retelling the same basic tale do not strengthen the premise that the original was true or even happened unless some additional, independent evidence is available. We have little to none of that.
How many legends have any serious numbers of people taking them seriously that were about people who never existed? That’s what’s under discussion, for some reason - the claim that there are people denying that there ever was a man named Jesus who attracted a following.
It is indeed. Who’s making that claim?
This scholar & historian disagrees with you. Or are you now going to say that Humphreys isn’t a true scholar and historian?
No, that isn’t what this is about-that is what some want to make it about because that strawman is much easier to tackle than the question asked in the OP.
The OP that was left in the dust 12 pages ago? Nothing more to say about it, just mop-up action.