The more involved your point, the less likely you are to actually back it up? That sounds like an awkward way to go through life.
As one of the mods said,
Not really.
BUT
The better question is, is there any evidence for outright fraud in the case of Jesus, as there is in the case of the latter two. And there, the answer AFAIK is “no”, so while I’ve jokingly referred to the parallels already in this thread, I don’t actually think they’re comparable (which is why I’m not a complete mythicist any more).
That’s honourable. I mean that sincerely. I know how hard it can be to admit a mistake. But that’s the Dope for ya. What you thought you knew gets tried and tested every which way, and along the way you learn lotsa cool new stuff. Welcome.
It’s surprising how little firm evidence there is for many important ancient persons.
As just one example, consider King David, the legendary First King of united Israel and Judah, whose son allegedly built magnificent structures (for which there is very little evidence). Important personage, no?
Apparently the historicity of King David relies on a single inscribed stone discovered in 1993 (if one discounts the Bible as history). :smack:
Yeah, note all the weasel-words there: “has been interpreted”, “may also contain”. Also note the large logical leap for those bullae in “there was government activity->David!”. Underpants gnomes would be proud.
Sorry. You are getting it backward.
You make the claim; you provide the evidence.
I have no problem with your OP, as such, but you keep dropping big errors into your subsequent arguments. When you then tell other posters that they should go do the research to establish your claims, you are simply out of line and we are free to point and laugh. If you cannot provide support for your claim, simply stop typing and don’t use that point.
I have already show, using your posts, that you tend to make broad brush claims that you cannot support.
Here are a couple more:
This is just silly. Gnosticism arose at about the same time as Christianity. However, the ideas of hellfire and torment did not come from contemporary Greek gnostics, but from the apocalyptic tradition of Jewish literature, such as the Book of Enoch, written over the last two hundred years before the current era and the first century of the current era.
Really? Fourth century theologians knew that a late twentieth century scholar was going to expose their plot, so went back and invented an excuse for their misdeeds? :dubious:
More seriously, while there may be some kernel of fact in that claim, you post it as though it was a serious effort by multiple theologians. Yet, somehow, that hardly made it into mainstream Christian theology until it was (re-?)introduced by Fundamentalist Christians? It would not surprise me to find that some Christian writer or another made that assertion around 300. (Of course, the idea was hardly invented in 300, since Paul alluded to a similar idea in the first century (1 Cor 10:20).) However, presenting it as a serious effort by theologians so grossly inflates the case as to make your claim a perfect target to be punctured. Which theologian(s) made the claim? How much of their writing was devoted to this plot?
Again, I have no problem with your basic intent, I am just pointing out that throwing out wild claims and then telling others to do your research will fail to persuade anyone of the accuracy of your claims. This is Great Debates. If you don’t want to support your position, I can move this to In My Humble Opinion for you.
I appreciate that. But when we look into the reasons “authorities” cite for the existence of Jesus the man, they often cite such factors as the rapidity with which the story got accepted, and the fervor with which new adherents maintained their belief in a consistent story in the face of hostility and persecution. Both factors which are at least somewhat true in Mormon and Scientology.
And as far as evidence of fraud in the Jesus story - well - we are talking about humans back then, aren’t we? 
My wife, only somewhat jokingly, has suggested that the most important figure in history is not Jesus, but the person who decided to hide his body! 
Heck, when I’m feeling generous, I will acknowledge that there certainly may well have been some preacher named Jesus 2000 years ago - same as I’d suggest there are likely “real” germs for many myths. What just boggles this rationalist’s mind, however, is why so many otherwise sensible appearing folk choose to accept this one myth as “truth,” and why religious belief is treated any differently than a belief in witchcraft, alien abduction, Santa Claus, etc. But, that is too OT for someone coming late to this thread.
Hear, hear. I understand there really was a First Rabbit who dabbled in egg painting. Look where it got him.
Well, he shouldn’t have painted those eggs with “Romans go Home” on them, should he. Bloody insurrectionist.
Doesn’t modern archaeology pretty much show that there WAS no united kingdom? I think the South was a backwater at the time.
Of some relevance: 9 Things You Think You Know About Jesus That Are Probably Wrong.
The disciples and Paul couldn’t have successfully started a new religion based on a mythical person. They were out starting churches shortly after his death. His story and life was the inspiration for the new religion. Jesus was a real person to the people of Corinth and the Thessalonians .
Ugh:
Well, which one is it: “From astrology” or mimicking “the 12 tribes of Israel”?
Also: The “12 sons of Odin”!? That’s not right at all.
That’s nothing. I “learned” from Dan Brown (Angels & Demons) that “The practice of ‘god-eating’ — that is, Holy Communion — was borrowed from the Aztecs.”
Dispel my ignorance, please. What evidence shows that Jesus visited or entertained visitors from Corinth and Thessaly? What is your basis for averring that Jesus “was a real person” to them?
The majority of folk seem to have no difficulty believing folk like Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard successfully developed followings based on complete bullshit. Not to mention a number of charismatic political leaders. Why should we believe that was impossible 2000 years ago?
I have no proof that the early leaders of the christian church were megalomaniacal/delusional/bullshitters… But such behavior is certainly within the capacity of human beings.
Dude. Bro. I can totally top that.
See, for several decades, the Belgian nobleman Georges le Clément de Saint-Marcq stubbornly maintained that Christ’s Holy Communion didn’t actually consist of bread and wine, but of… A certain… Eh… Bodily fluid… With which Jesus… Uh… Treated his disciples. (No, not blood. That other bodily fluid. You know the one.)
So maybe Sterling Hayden was right about precious bodily fluids?
Is Seeker coming back?
Who is Sterling Hayden?