Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Minimalist]

You said, "He thought the end-times were coming in the life time of his own followers ..." which is correct. Therefore, if Jesus really believed that, then of course he would say that the destruction of the temple would occur.

Um, that IS what the fucking godboy is alleged to have said....looks like another one he got wrong.

Pretty shitty batting average for a "god," huh?

[Dānu]

As far as Paul is concerned, you cannot say he knew nothing of a written gospel. 

Rom_15:20  Yea, so I have been eager to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation;
2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .
Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,
Gal_1:7  which is not another, but some are troubling you, and desiring to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Okay. Now you've got me curious. What evidence do you have that Paul was referring to a written account by his use of the term 'gospel' here? The words in question here both refer to a good message or glad tidings, and as far as I know don't necessarily refer to a written text. If you know differently, then please provide the evidence that you are basing that conclusion upon.

[Minimalist]

"Gospel" etymologically speaking, simply means "good news" in middle English.  Its a fairly straightforward adaptation of the Greek "euangelion" which also means simply "good news." 

To give you an idea of what a useless phrase "good news" is there were plenty of Trumptards who thought it was good news when that moron was elected.

In any case these tales were in all probability oral fables told among believers.  As such, they are pretty worthless but there was no requirement that they be written, especially in what was a largely illiterate society.

[Bucky Ball]

Or, Jesus actually said the temple would be destroyed and it was just one lucky coincidence. Or, he was smart enough to know that time itself would destroy the temple. 

The thing is, he never said it would be the Romans who destroyed the temple. All he said was that one day the temple would be destroyed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that, given enough time, all things will perish.

Jesus predicted nothing extraordinary, nor did the author use any hindsight to write that passage. People read into that shit too much.

Bullshit. Total bullshit.
He thought the end-times were coming in the life time of his own followers.... not eventually.
Paul knows nothing about any written gospel.
You're just making up shit.

You don't realize it, but just admitted I am correct with your own words. You said, "He thought the end-times were coming in the life time of his own followers ..." which is correct. Therefore, if Jesus really believed that, then of course he would say that the destruction of the temple would occur. Jesus believed that the end times would be the destruction of everything, not just the temple. Hence, if he actually said it, it would not be a prediction that came true in the sense of how he intended it to be true, which would mean that the destruction of the temple would occur along with the destruction of everything else as per his end-times perspective.

The fact that the temple was destroyed by the Romans has absolutely nothing to do with how Jesus viewed how the destruction of the temple would occur as per his end times perspective. Since the destruction of the temple was supposed to occur as per his end-times perspective, and it didn't happen that way, not only was Jesus incorrect, but the Christian interpretation was also incorrect, and those who think the part written in the Gospels about the prediction of the destruction of the temple was written in after the temple was destroyed are also incorrect.

All that verse shows us is how wrong Jesus actually was, if you view it in the context of his end-times prediction. The fact that the Romans destroyed the temple some 40 years later is merely coincidental.

Everyone is wrong. Jesus, the Christians, and those who say it was written in after the destruction of the temple.

As far as Paul is concerned, you cannot say he knew nothing of a written gospel. 

Rom_15:20  Yea, so I have been eager to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation;
2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .
Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,
Gal_1:7  which is not another, but some are troubling you, and desiring to pervert the gospel of Christ.

LOLOLOL
I admitted no such thing, no matter how dishonestly you try to twist what I said.
You have not one shred of evidence Paul knew anything about a WRITTEN gospel.
The end-times were to be NOT the destruction of the temple, and everything else, but the re-establishment of the kingdom.
The messiah was to lead that. Jesus FAILED to get anything done, and in fact the execution was a scandal which they had to work their way out of, if the cult was to survive.
You really seem to know very little about Hebrew culture, and all this.

He knew nothing of a written gospel, and you have not one shred of evidence he did.
You dishonestly left out this :
Galatians 1:11
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Did Paul write a gospel ?
LOL

[Phaedrus]

Jesus Christ: a more credible expletive than historical figure.

[Free]

You said, "He thought the end-times were coming in the life time of his own followers ..." which is correct. Therefore, if Jesus really believed that, then of course he would say that the destruction of the temple would occur.

Um, that IS what the fucking godboy is alleged to have said....looks like another one he got wrong.

Pretty shitty batting average for a "god," huh?

Except he wasn't a god since there are no supernatural gods.

[Free]

Bullshit. Total bullshit.
He thought the end-times were coming in the life time of his own followers.... not eventually.
Paul knows nothing about any written gospel.
You're just making up shit.

You don't realize it, but just admitted I am correct with your own words. You said, "He thought the end-times were coming in the life time of his own followers ..." which is correct. Therefore, if Jesus really believed that, then of course he would say that the destruction of the temple would occur. Jesus believed that the end times would be the destruction of everything, not just the temple. Hence, if he actually said it, it would not be a prediction that came true in the sense of how he intended it to be true, which would mean that the destruction of the temple would occur along with the destruction of everything else as per his end-times perspective.

The fact that the temple was destroyed by the Romans has absolutely nothing to do with how Jesus viewed how the destruction of the temple would occur as per his end times perspective. Since the destruction of the temple was supposed to occur as per his end-times perspective, and it didn't happen that way, not only was Jesus incorrect, but the Christian interpretation was also incorrect, and those who think the part written in the Gospels about the prediction of the destruction of the temple was written in after the temple was destroyed are also incorrect.

All that verse shows us is how wrong Jesus actually was, if you view it in the context of his end-times prediction. The fact that the Romans destroyed the temple some 40 years later is merely coincidental.

Everyone is wrong. Jesus, the Christians, and those who say it was written in after the destruction of the temple.

As far as Paul is concerned, you cannot say he knew nothing of a written gospel. 

Rom_15:20  Yea, so I have been eager to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation;
2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .
Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,
Gal_1:7  which is not another, but some are troubling you, and desiring to pervert the gospel of Christ.

LOLOLOL
I admitted no such thing, no matter how dishonestly you try to twist what I said.

But you did, and you still don't know how. I have given you an indepth analysis of that particular verse and how to properly understand it in the context it was written in. Since Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed along with the whole world as part of his end-times philosophy- which you agree with- and that didn't happen, then his prediction failed. Since it failed, then his prediction has nothing to do with that version being written later in the 1st century after the destruction of the temple. THAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK AGAINST HIM SINCE HIS PREDICTION FAILED TO COME TO FRUITION. 

Again, the fact that the Romans destroyed the temple 40 years later is merely coincidental.

You have not one shred of evidence Paul knew anything about a WRITTEN gospel.
The end-times were to be NOT the destruction of the temple, and everything else, but the re-establishment of the kingdom.
The messiah was to lead that. Jesus FAILED to get anything done, and in fact the execution was a scandal which they had to work their way out of, if the cult was to survive.
You really seem to know very little about Hebrew culture, and all this.

He knew nothing of a written gospel, and you have not one shred of evidence he did.
You dishonestly left out this :
Galatians 1:11
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Did Paul write a gospel ?
LOL

Like I said, you cannot claim he didn't know of a written gospel just because he doesn't explicitly name one. That's merely an argument from silence, and a bad one. You should know better by now than to try that fallacious reasoning shit with me.

As far as evidence to support the possibility that he may indeed have known about a written gospel, we need look no further than 1 Cor 11:23 in which Paul quotes Jesus at the Last Supper virtually verbatim as per what we see in Mark 14:22–24, Matthew 26:26–28, and Luke 22:19–20.

So ... there's that.

[Grandizer]

As far as evidence to support the possibility that he may indeed have known about a written gospel, we need look no further than 1 Cor 11:23 in which Paul quotes Jesus at the Last Supper virtually verbatim as per what we see in Mark 14:22–24, Matthew 26:26–28, and Luke 22:19–20.

The Lord's Supper may perhaps have been common knowledge/tradition among the churches before it was then penned down on paper.

Either way, it's clear that when Paul refers to the Gospel, he's not talking about a written work. He's talking about the Gospel he himself preaches and of which he claims to have received by divine revelation.

[Free]

As far as evidence to support the possibility that he may indeed have known about a written gospel, we need look no further than 1 Cor 11:23 in which Paul quotes Jesus at the Last Supper virtually verbatim as per what we see in Mark 14:22–24, Matthew 26:26–28, and Luke 22:19–20.

The Lord's Supper may perhaps have been common knowledge/tradition among the churches before it was then penned down on paper.

Either way, it's clear that when Paul refers to the Gospel, he's not talking about a written work. He's talking about the Gospel he himself preaches and of which he claims to have received by divine revelation.

But the verbatim quote as to what we see in the Gospel records is rather compelling.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

@Free , I'm curious.
do you have any information about the Romans crucifying folks who weren't criminals or slaves?

[Free]

@Free , I'm curious.
do you have any information about the Romans crucifying folks who weren't criminals or slaves?

No.

But even a Jew looking at Roman the wrong way could get him strung up by the balls, crime or not. What i am saying is, it's probable that people did get crucified for basically nothing. It was like, "Just throw another Jew on the barby."

[jerry mcmasters]

I have a few other preliminaries to get out of the way prior to a more complete response to your post, jerry, but I'm not in the mood tonight, so rather than keep you waiting another day, I'd start by requesting some clarification.  You say in your latest reply to me that I am basically misrepresenting you by attributing a comparative argument to you.  I thought that might be the case, which is why I qualified the matter in each of my replies.  However, I'm not familiar with any non-comparative argument which can either substantiate or undermine a claim of special pleading, so if that is not your argument, then I have no clue exactly what it is that you actually are arguing.  I'll need you to explain your argument to me, and explain why you think it leads to the conclusion about special pleading that you've made.  It doesn't have to be in syllogistic form, loose or rigorous, but you need to make your argument more explicit, because I can't see that you've made any argument, if you're not making a comparative argument.  Naturally, it would be preferable for you to state it as a syllogism, but I'm not demanding it.

So, for now, I'll have to wait until you explain what it is that you are in fact arguing.

I think this discussion is useful to neither of us.  If you think suspecting there might have been a "real" Jesus, in some bastardized human form, is "special pleading" because no one believes there was a "real" Krishna, then it's not really that big a deal.  If you want to flesh out your reasons for asserting the special pleading case, just pick up where we left off.  If it's just an assertion, unexamined, unexplained, just blurted out as if it's supposed to be taken seriously, that's cool, but I for one don't take it seriously.

We seem to be having some difficulty understanding each other.  Earlier in this thread, you claimed that there was evidence for a historical Jesus.  You have also asserted that some of that evidence is more than simply that which is contained in the holy texts themselves which helps establish the historicity of the account.  So let's get a few basic questions squared away here.  Do you believe there was a historical Jesus?  Do you believe there was a historical Krishna?  As best I can tell, the limits of what you are claiming now are that you simply are too ignorant of the relevant evidence to give an opinion one way or another regarding the charge of special pleading.  Is that what you are saying?  I find your latest complaint most strange.  You put forward a point about the historical Jesus, namely the story of Jesus and the money changers illustrating a very human and therefore a historical Jesus.  When I provide you the corresponding detail about Krishna, you simply dismiss it and raise additional points about Jesus that, I presumed you thought qualitatively different from the details of the Krishna story.  If you didn't think they were qualitatively different, then why did you bring them up?  This is nothing more than the iconic Gish gallop applied to the question of a historical Jesus.  

Any discussion of religious narratives requires some familiarity with the evidence if you are going to venture an opinion on it.  The amount of information that you and Free have presented about the bible is a mere fraction of the knowledge of the religious literature required to even make sense of that discussion.  The Testimonium Flavianum makes no sense whatsoever to a person who has no knowledge of the relevant biblical literature.  If that is your standard then, yes, you are correct, I cannot hope to compete when you demand that I educate you on the Krishna stories yet you conversely simply expect me to display that very same competence about the Jesus story.  If you're simply saying that you don't know whether there is a historical Krishna and therefore you don't know whether believing in a historical Jesus is special pleading, then I can accept that.  Is that what you have been trying to say?  I must confess that this is not the impression I got from your prior arguments.  If that is what you are saying, and you are simply saying that you take no position on the question of whether there was a historical Jesus and no position that there is or is not special pleading involved in concluding that there was a historical Jesus, then that's fine.  If you have no position on either question, then you're probably right that there isn't much to discuss.  

From my familiarity with some of the Krishna stories I believe there are clear parallels, at least with regard to the story alone, and that there are compelling arguments for any extra-textual context which may differ.  I'm more than happy to match one or two points here where you may not have heard this or that particular Krishna story, but expecting me to be sufficiently familiar with the evidence and story surrounding Jesus, and then expecting me to provide you with comparable education concerning the story of Krishna is both unreasonable and hypocritical.  If you're content with an ignorant opinion on the subject, or no opinion at all, that's fine.  I'm not going to waste my time providing you with the education you need to speak intelligently on the topic.

I think I have some things to learn from you regarding the comparison of Jesus and Krishna but the price seems a bit too high to bother with.  Where we had left off earlier seems a good place to continue but here we have another exhausting reset and return to ground zero, much of that was just you repeating yourself.  If it's that complicated to demonstrate the the NT lit on Jesus and the lit that informs us of Krisha (of which we have both emphasized I am quite ignorant!) are that contextually, historically, and factually similar than I'm just left to suspect that they're not really that similar after all, and the "special pleading" criticism is invalid.

[Bucky Ball]

Like I said, you cannot claim he didn't know of a written gospel just because he doesn't explicitly name one. That's merely an argument from silence, and a bad one. You should know better by now than to try that fallacious reasoning shit with me.

As far as evidence to support the possibility that he may indeed have known about a written gospel, we need look no further than 1 Cor 11:23 in which Paul quotes Jesus at the Last Supper virtually verbatim as per what we see in Mark 14:22–24, Matthew 26:26–28, and Luke 22:19–20.

So ... there's that.

Your little quotes are actually evidence that they all made up Jesus much later, when these things would not offend Jews. 
No Jew would NEVER EVER offer or suggest that fellow Jews eat human flesh, or even a possible "stand-in" for it, 
and even worse, have them commit the abomination of drinking blood, (something which would be nauseating to a Jew). 

You really don't know much of anything about that culture, do you ?
Jesus said that until all things were accomplished, not one jot or tittle would be changed in the "law" ... and here we have a whole new covenant proposed... 
yeah ... all just made up later. Some day if and when you do learn about Hebrew culture, you may learn to actually hear the nuances.

And why is it, that John tells a LONG tale of a Last Supper with no Eucharist institution, and a totally different LONG prayer the others say nothing about ?
Why ? It's all made up many many decades later.

[Minimalist]

You said, "He thought the end-times were coming in the life time of his own followers ..." which is correct. Therefore, if Jesus really believed that, then of course he would say that the destruction of the temple would occur.

Um, that IS what the fucking godboy is alleged to have said....looks like another one he got wrong.

Pretty shitty batting average for a "god," huh?

Except he wasn't a god since there are no supernatural gods.

For once we agree on something.  Now if you could just lose the idea than an actual human is necessary to be a foundation for bullshit mythology we might get somewhere.  Sadly, I can't ever see you crossing that bridge.

[Free]

Um, that IS what the fucking godboy is alleged to have said....looks like another one he got wrong.

Pretty shitty batting average for a "god," huh?

Except he wasn't a god since there are no supernatural gods.

For once we agree on something.  Now if you could just lose the idea than an actual human is necessary to be a foundation for bullshit mythology we might get somewhere.  Sadly, I can't ever see you crossing that bridge.

You don't seem to understand my position on this issue so I will explain it to you.

The argument for historicity is better than the argument for total myth for the simple reason that historicity has some evidence to support and the myth position has none.

I am not saying the evidence for historicity proves the existence of Jesus, but only that it suggests a reasonable hypothesis give the fact that the available evidence fits the hypothesis insomuch as it provides the best available explanation.

The problem with the mythicist position is obvious. There is no evidence to support it, and virtually all arguments are arguments from silence, and most of those are fallacious.

I would have no problem at all accepting Jesus to be nothing but pure myth, but the evidence for historicity- scant as it is- should not be ignored in the interest of intellectual honesty.

To me, it would appear that proving Jesus to be nothing but a mere man who ran afoul of the Romans and got crucified is more tenable than claiming him to be wholly mythical because the evidence for historicity also works as evidence against mythicism.

Therefore, for any Christians who read this thread, sorry about your luck, but Jesus wasn't all that and a bag of chips. The evidence indicates that he was an ordinary man who pushed his luck a bit too far with the Romans who subsequently nailed him to a cross and crucified him like they did to other countless Jews. There was nothing extraordinary about the man. After he died, his zealous followers embellished his life with nonsensical tales of extraordinary feats that defy logic, reason, and truthfulness.

Jesus is dead, and he's going to stay that way forever. Get over it.

[Aractus]

The problem with the mythicist position is obvious. There is no evidence to support it, and virtually all arguments are arguments from silence, and most of those are fallacious.

I personally don't say "there is no evidence for ..." RG Price, author of the book "Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed" (published last year), proposed on /r/HistoricOrMythicJesus the following as the core mythicist model:

1. The pre-Gospel epistles provide no information about or interest in a person called Jesus
   
2. Every narrative about Jesus (the canonical Gospels and all other writings) shows dependence on the Gospel of Mark
   
3. The Gospel of Mark is a "fictional" (ahistorical) story that was entirely invented by its author
   

Out of those three points, point "2" has by far the greatest support, and on point "3" it can be shown that much of what is in the gospels is fictionalised. For example Luke's insistence that Jesus is not baptised by John - the fact that the Evangelist thinks he can get away with this suggests that either tradition he inherited from gMark is weak, or, he is very willing to change the facts about Jesus to suit his gospel.

For me there are several points that need to be addressed convincingly before an argument for mythicism would be remotely plausible. One of those is accounting for the multiple independent Passion accounts in the NT - there are at least three that are independent of each other: Mark 14-16, Acts 13:27-31, 1 Cor 15:3-8. There are further passion narratives in Acts 2:22-24, 3:12-16, and 10:39-42, and there are numerious other places both in Acts and in Paul's letters where it is directly referenced often along with a partial narrative. What all that tells me is that the Passion has a strong tradition behind it, and multiple independently developed traditions. RG's response to this FWIW is that "The passion narrative in Acts is obviously influenced by the Markan narrative, it was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke, who obviously copied it from there." Colour me unconvinced. You just need to read the Acts 13 passion narrative for yourselves to see it is missing all the key points in the Markan narrative.

Another weakness, at least with RG's approach, is his insistence that there is no "Q" gospel. That means his whole hypothesis is dependent on the factual reality of Luke's dependence on Matthew - something I find very hard to believe, and indeed a scholarly view that only has limited support.

What Minimalist and Bucky need to understand is not only does their adherence to mythicism make them look bad, it makes all atheists look bad.

[Dānu]

That's not at all true. Folklorists and psychologists have studied the way that oral culture works and the way that myth and legend develops, and, we have considerable knowledge about the ancient near east as well as comparative examples of other myths and legends to compare the Jesus phenomena with. So to say that we have no evidence to support the mythicist hypothesis is simply mistaken. There probably are other things one can point to in order to support the hypothesis, but that is sufficient to put this notion that there is no evidence for the mythicist position to rest. Additionally, this seems to be an example of a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is not the mythicist's obligation to prove that Jesus didn't happen, but rather that the evidence for a historical Jesus has explanations that are sufficiently probable to make the so-called evidence moot. Asking the mythicist to prove that something didn't happen simply makes it look like you don't really understand the issues involved.

[Free]

The problem with the mythicist position is obvious. There is no evidence to support it, and virtually all arguments are arguments from silence, and most of those are fallacious.

I personally don't say "there is no evidence for ..." RG Price, author of the book "Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed" (published last year), proposed on /r/HistoricOrMythicJesus the following as the core mythicist model:

1. The pre-Gospel epistles provide no information about or interest in a person called Jesus
   
2. Every narrative about Jesus (the canonical Gospels and all other writings) shows dependence on the Gospel of Mark
   
3. The Gospel of Mark is a "fictional" (ahistorical) story that was entirely invented by its author
   

Even Price provides no evidence. He also makes assumptions he cannot prove, and then bases his argument from there. For example,

1. The pre-Gospel epistles provide no information about or interest in a person called Jesus.

False. Firstly, we do not know with any degree of certainty whether or not the epistles are pre-gospel. Yet Price states it as if it's fact. Also, the evidence that Paul describes Jesus as a person is so abundant that it literally makes Price's assertion nothing less than a lie.

2. Every narrative about Jesus (the canonical Gospels and all other writings) shows dependence on the Gospel of Mark

False. No, they do not. Merely stating something as fact, without evidence, is pure crap. The Gospel of Thomas has nothing to do with Mark, nor do many of the Gnostic narratives. The list is endless.
.
3. The Gospel of Mark is a "fictional" (ahistorical) story that was entirely invented by its author.

False. Contradicted by other historical sources that speak of the crucifixion of Jesus.

When I speak of evidence, I do not speak of evidence such as arguments. Evidence is something that can be examined and verified, and the evidence that is lacking for the mythicist position is one single ancient quotation of anyone in antiquity stating anything to the effect that Jesus never existed at all.

[Free]

Like I said, you cannot claim he didn't know of a written gospel just because he doesn't explicitly name one. That's merely an argument from silence, and a bad one. You should know better by now than to try that fallacious reasoning shit with me.

As far as evidence to support the possibility that he may indeed have known about a written gospel, we need look no further than 1 Cor 11:23 in which Paul quotes Jesus at the Last Supper virtually verbatim as per what we see in Mark 14:22–24, Matthew 26:26–28, and Luke 22:19–20.

So ... there's that.

Your little quotes are actually evidence that they all made up Jesus much later, when these things would not offend Jews. 
No Jew would NEVER EVER offer or suggest that fellow Jews eat human flesh, or even a possible "stand-in" for it, 
and even worse, have them commit the abomination of drinking blood, (something which would be nauseating to a Jew). 

You really don't know much of anything about that culture, do you ?
Jesus said that until all things were accomplished, not one jot or tittle would be changed in the "law" ... and here we have a whole new covenant proposed... 
yeah ... all just made up later. Some day if and when you do learn about Hebrew culture, you may learn to actually hear the nuances.

And why is it, that John tells a LONG tale of a Last Supper with no Eucharist institution, and a totally different LONG prayer the others say nothing about ?
Why ? It's all made up many many decades later.

Bucky I know you are not so stupid as to not understand that those quotes of Jesus are quotes of him using allegories. And if you read how his followers responded, you will see that they didn't understand his allegories and were, in fact, disgusted.

As far as John is concerned, it's border-line Gnostic, and likely was written late. I have no argument there.

[Free]

That's not at all true.  Folklorists and psychologists have studied the way that oral culture works and the way that myth and legend develops, and, we have considerable knowledge about the ancient near east as well as comparative examples of other myths and legends to compare the Jesus phenomena with.  So to say that we have no evidence to support the mythicist hypothesis is simply mistaken.  There probably are other things one can point to in order to support the hypothesis, but that is sufficient to put this notion that there is no evidence for the mythicist position to rest.  Additionally, this seems to be an example of a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof.  It is not the mythicist's obligation to prove that Jesus didn't happen, but rather that the evidence for a historical Jesus has explanations that are sufficiently probable to make the so-called evidence moot.  Asking the mythicist to prove that something didn't happen simply makes it look like you don't really understand the issues involved.

There is no evidence to support the position that Jesus is wholly myth. 

None.

It doesn't matter what other cultures have done to ascertain the mythical status of anyone or anything else. That is completely unrelated. Just because a mythical status has been ascribed to one character has nothing to do with it be ascribed to another completely different character in a completely different culture. The establishment of Zeus, for example, as being a myth is completely unrelated to Jesus.

Each evaluation stands on its own, and are not dependent on each other for the simple reason they are all unrelated.

[Minimalist]

One of those is accounting for the multiple independent Passion accounts in the NT -

No, Danny.... they are not multiple independent accounts.  They are all dependent on the first bullshit story known as "mark."  That they were later edited by later writers helps your cause not at all.

You know, Danny, your sorry adherence to jesus shit makes all theists look stupid, too.  You never catch on.

[Free]

One of those is accounting for the multiple independent Passion accounts in the NT -

No, Danny.... they are not multiple independent accounts.  They are all dependent on the first bullshit story known as "mark."  That they were later edited by later writers helps your cause not at all.

You know, Danny, your sorry adherence to jesus shit makes all theists look stupid, too.  You never catch on.

You do understand that it is only assumed that Mark was the 1st gospel, right? The truth is we have no way of knowing it at all. For all we know, Mark could be some scaled down version of Luke, or Matthew, or some other unknown gospel.

Some scholars seem to base their assumption that Mark was written sometime after AD 70 due to the temple being destroyed, and because that gospel has Jesus predicting it would be destroyed. Those scholars obviously didn't put much thought into that evaluation since they failed to understand that Jesus' prediction was a complete failure because, according to what he allegedly said, the temple would be destroyed along with everything else, the whole world. Because the whole world was not destroyed, then his prediction was false, and the fact that the Romans destroyed the temple some 40 years later has absolutely nothing to do with how Jesus thought it would all go down.

Therefore, trying to date the Gospel of Mark according to a failed prediction of Jesus is a complete and utter failure in and of itself.

[SYZ]

LOL... I can't believe this thread has run to 1,100 posts!

Put simply:

• Jesus the man may have existed as described.

• Jesus's alleged powers are merely fictional.

• That this putative Jesus died, and rose again, is purely fictional.

—End of story.  Thank you.    

[Dancefortwo]

LOL... I can't believe this thread has run to 1,100 posts!

• That this putative Jesus died, and rose again, is purely fictional.

—End of story.  Thank you.    

Yup.   This thread......

[Dānu]

That's not at all true.  Folklorists and psychologists have studied the way that oral culture works and the way that myth and legend develops, and, we have considerable knowledge about the ancient near east as well as comparative examples of other myths and legends to compare the Jesus phenomena with.  So to say that we have no evidence to support the mythicist hypothesis is simply mistaken.  There probably are other things one can point to in order to support the hypothesis, but that is sufficient to put this notion that there is no evidence for the mythicist position to rest.  Additionally, this seems to be an example of a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof.  It is not the mythicist's obligation to prove that Jesus didn't happen, but rather that the evidence for a historical Jesus has explanations that are sufficiently probable to make the so-called evidence moot.  Asking the mythicist to prove that something didn't happen simply makes it look like you don't really understand the issues involved.

There is no evidence to support the position that Jesus is wholly myth. 

None.

It doesn't matter what other cultures have done to ascertain the mythical status of anyone or anything else. That is completely unrelated. Just because a mythical status has been ascribed to one character has nothing to do with it be ascribed to another completely different character in a completely different culture. The establishment of Zeus, for example, as being a myth is completely unrelated to Jesus.

Each evaluation stands on its own, and are not dependent on each other for the simple reason they are all unrelated.

That's simply not how probability works.