This is what ZEGH posted on another forum:
you misunderstood me:
what IS jesus?
think about it
what DEFINES him?
factually, every defining feature of his life is either
1. not physically possible
or
2. a "redux" of earlyer myths
remove his _defining features_ and he is nobody, NOT EVEN a "preacher", not EVEN a carpenter. he _ceases to exist_
to put it bluntly: "jesus" "yisa" aka many other names, mostly before christianity, is simply one of many symbols of the solistice/sun.
this is where people get angry, cus they feel attacked, and will throw conspiracy accusations at you, which is why i never mention this conclusion aloud very much.
the cult of "christus" emerged long after he was supposed to have lived, the whole premise is basically a group of people claiming that "once upon a time, a huuundred years ago, lived a man!"
they just made it up
they didnt even entirely make it up, since this cult existed allready, under other incarnations.
people waaant jesus to have existed, as a non-magical but historical real person, one who maybe did not walk on water, but at least preached peace and love.
truth is, many people did this,
but the actual person of "jesus of nazareth" is not ONE specific individual. that defined person never existed.
AT BEST, "jesus" is a chimera of many different "street-prophets", but merely for a realism-effect, something people at the time could recognize "oh yes, ive seen those. ha! jesus must be real then :O"
like shleed says, the best evidence points to people forming cults, break it down, and its one of many cultists at the time, who, in their lack of uniqueness become irrelevant by themselves.
i hope this isnt tl-dr 
but it really is obvious once you just dissect it a little.
if a future deity is based on this celtic chick who could melt iron with her brainwaves, and that is her defining feature, we know that if we remove this supernatural definition, she could just as well be YOU.
without the defining feature, she could be bodie.
most likely, she never existed at all, because nobody can melt iron with their brain.
it finally comes down to faith... annoyingly enough.
theres no definite evidence "jesus of nazareth" existed.
theres no definite evidence he did absolutely never exist, as a street-prophet, under a similar name.
i choose to go for "occams razor", that the water-walker bread-rainmaker never existed whatsoever.
So now, time to dissect his post and address each point on its own just to show how ridiculous his argument is.
you misunderstood me:
what IS jesus?
think about it
what DEFINES him?
Now, ZEGH, I'ven oticed you like using this tactic quite a lot. Often suggesting that we define a person/group first before we proceed with the argument ...
despite the fact that they've already been clearly defined conventionally and don't need someone like you to redefine them.
factually, every defining feature of his life is either
1. not physically possible
or
2. a "redux" of earlyer myths
Ah, this is where the fun begins. The logical fallacy galore.
First up, this is clearly a false dichotomy fallacy. There are other options to keep in mind. For example, that a certain feature of Jesus' recorded life is not supernatural and is not even a "redux" of earlier myths. So why no option 3 is beyond me. Or maybe not.
Secondly, "the "redux" of earlier myths" fringe theory is a myth when it comes to the Gospel story of Jesus. The story of Jesus is actually, relatively speaking, quite original and is not purely copied (or even adapted) from previous sources.
There is no good evidence whatsoever supporting this ridiculous idea that any character in any of the myths/legends prior to Jesus was collectively born of a virgin, had a mother named Mary (or some other similar name), baptized by a John, had exclusively twelve main "insider disciples", was crucified on the cross only to rise from the dead within a few days and ascend later on to heaven.
This means neither Horus nor Osiris nor Dionysus nor Mithra nor Heracles nor Odin nor Krishna nor Buddha nor any character whatsoever created/developed before Jesus was said to be in any story closely related to the Gospel story.
And if the above statement was not true, we'd have at least one primary source supporting the contrary and I'd have read such a fascinating pre-Jesus Gospel story from when I was a little kid who was obsessed with ancient myths and legends of all sorts. Interesting how I never came upon such a story back then.
Therefore, the second option is definitely out of the picture anyway. And we know that not all elements of Jesus' life was supernatural. So false dichotomy it is.
remove his _defining features_ and he is nobody, NOT EVEN a "preacher", not EVEN a carpenter. he _ceases to exist_
Definitely. Remove all aspects of him and he's no longer the Jesus we read of in the Bible. That doesn't mean, however, that he never existed.
No critical historian/scholar agrees with you, ZEGH, that Jesus could not have existed. At least they agree that he likely existed because it's meaningless to argue his existence. You need to come up with good solid evidence that suggests a normal human being like him couldn't have existed. Otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
If you want to be agnostic about Jesus' existence, that's fine. But when you try to argue against his existence, then you're making a claim that needs to be backed up in some way. It's not enough to just make claims.
to put it bluntly: "jesus" "yisa" aka many other names, mostly before christianity, is simply one of many symbols of the solistice/sun.
To put it bluntly, you've been misled ... big time. You've been lied to by frauds like Acharya S and the likes. Jesus' Biblical character/story has nothing whatsoever to do with the solstice or the sun.
Try reading real educative books for a change. Or go do a course on theology or Biblical history or ancient myths or something.
this is where people get angry, cus they feel attacked, and will throw conspiracy accusations at you, which is why i never mention this conclusion aloud very much.
Or because you'd be ridiculed big time by people like me who clearly see the bullshit in the claims you're making. The only effect these arguments have on me is that they annoy me because of how much I know this is not true and because people like you insist on arguing that they're correct in what they're saying pertaining to this topic despite all the evidence countering them.
If people like you were to just admit they were wrong and that they don't have anything to back their claims up and that they'd stop spouting these bullshit claims, then I'd understand and give them the benefit of the doubt. But your insistence on arguing that they must be correct despite everything is an indication that you refuse to be intellectually honest at all.
the cult of "christus" emerged long after he was supposed to have lived, the whole premise is basically a group of people claiming that "once upon a time, a huuundred years ago, lived a man!"
Wrong. And you'll find it impossible to back such a clearly ignorant statement up. You'll never see the phrase "a hundred years ago" in any relevant primary source to do with Jesus' earthly life.
they just made it up
Like they made Nazareth up, right? Even though they could've just said "Bethlehem" from the start ... and not complicate things for themselves with the out-of-reach Nazareth claim.
they didnt even entirely make it up, since this cult existed allready, under other incarnations.
And there is no evidence whatsoever from any of the primary sources to back this up. So this is just a lie that you probably aren't even aware that it is.
people waaant jesus to have existed, as a non-magical but historical real person, one who maybe did not walk on water, but at least preached peace and love.
For me and for many historians/scholars and amateurs who are just interested in what the evidence says, we don't have an emotional attachment to Jesus' existence to the point that we want him to exist. We just find that it makes more sense that he existed than that he didn't.
And, for the record, Jesus was very likely an apocalypticist preacher, meaning he only preached peace and love so that his followers may prepare themselves well for the coming kingdom (which never came) where they would live with peace and love.
truth is, many people did this,
but the actual person of "jesus of nazareth" is not ONE specific individual. that defined person never existed.
The fact that we call him Jesus
of Nazareth means that we're dealing with a person who very likely existed historically at one point in time. Otherwise, we would've been reading about a Jesus
of Bethlehem instead.
AT BEST, "jesus" is a chimera of many different "street-prophets", but merely for a realism-effect, something people at the time could recognize "oh yes, ive seen those. ha! jesus must be real then :O"
Nope, that is not "at best". That's more like "at worst".
At best, Jesus did exist with enough significance on his followers that a cult was made up a while later after his death and proclaimed resurrection.
like shleed says, the best evidence points to people forming cults, break it down, and its one of many cultists at the time, who, in their lack of uniqueness become irrelevant by themselves.
I really don't know what you're saying here exactly (it's like your Qaeda and bin Laden remarks which hardly make sense), but props to you for trying to keep this vain argument going. Too bad it's ultimately just a failure.
i hope this isnt tl-dr but it really is obvious once you just dissect it a little.
Yeah, obvious my ass. Nice one. I hope you actually read this long reply addressing your argument point-by-point. But I doubt you'd give me much (if anything) in return to reply to.
Either way, I enjoy countering ridiculous points like these. So don't think I'm killing myself for nothing. This is nothing but pure fun for me.
if a future deity is based on this celtic chick who could melt iron with her brainwaves, and that is her defining feature, we know that if we remove this supernatural definition, she could just as well be YOU.
Yes, she could just be a human and actually exist as just a human. Funny how you don't realize how you actually countered what you were arguing this whole time in that post of yours.
Or does Jesus' historical existence bug you in some way? What are you afraid of exactly?
without the defining feature, she could be bodie.
Bodie is unique. No one can be her or even close.
most likely, she never existed at all, because nobody can melt iron with their brain.
Or it could be that she did exist but that they later made up all these legendary stories about him after his death. It's possible ... very possible.
Did you know Alexander the Great was said to have been born of a snake?
it finally comes down to faith... annoyingly enough.
Or evidence. Which you lack for your Jesus Copycat Sun God argument. Annoyingly enough.
theres no definite evidence "jesus of nazareth" existed.
There's no definite evidence any person in Jesus' day existed either. When it comes to ancient history, you will barely find any historical figure with evidence that would make us extremely confident that he ever existed. But due to the nature of evidence at the time, this is only to be expected.
If you have good reasons to believe Jesus never existed at all, then bring us evidence that collectively destroys the evidence and arguments pointing to the likelihood of his existence. Until then, your claims are just empty claims.
theres no definite evidence he did absolutely never exist, as a street-prophet, under a similar name.
Just another one of those desperate arguments people like you like to make.
i choose to go for "occams razor", that the water-walker bread-rainmaker never existed whatsoever.
Occam's razor favors Jesus' existence, silly. When you keep in mind all the sources and arguments to do with Jesus' existence, that is (for or against).
Otherwise, yes, when you take things out of context, Occam's razor can favor whatever it is you want it to favor.
