Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am now wondering which community is the more intolerant, believers or atheists, lol.

I’m personally intolerant of lies and bullsht.

Contempt is a bad look. I am new to these goings on. Do believers dump on atheists the way atheists refer to believers' beliefs as nonsense, lies, myths etc.?

Yes - Believers tend to think that non-believers are evil. Meanwhile, belief in the supernatural actually is "nonsense, lies, myths". You don't believe in fairies or Santa anymore, do you? But you still believe in God and angels.

Equating belief in the Christian God (or any God) with belief in fairies or Santa Claus, implying it’s equally childish or irrational?

Fairies and Santa are ad-hoc explanations for specific phenomena (where do missing cookies go? who brings presents?). When better explanations appear (parents, tooth fairy money under the pillow), they’re discarded without the worldview collapsing.

The idea of God isn’t an explanation for one narrow thing. It’s the attempt to answer the deepest ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ questions: why the universe exists at all, why it’s finely tuned for life, why there’s objective morality, why consciousness exists. Billions of people (including many brilliant scientists and philosophers) find theism the most coherent answer to those big questions.

I don’t believe in God because I’m afraid of the dark or because I never grew out of fairy tales. I believe because, after looking at the arguments (cosmological, teleological, moral, the historical case for the resurrection, personal experience, etc.), theism makes more sense of reality than naturalism does to me.

You’re free to weigh the same evidence and come to the opposite conclusion — that’s fair. But dismissing it as ‘believing in fairies’ is a rhetorical jab, not an argument. It’s like me saying atheism is just ‘believing in magic exploding universes from nothing and that your thoughts are just meaningless brain fizz.’

That feels clever, but it doesn’t actually engage the real reasons people hold these views.

You are correct. We can reasonably weigh the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

"Magic exploding universes" is a straw man fallacy. The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model supported by robust physical evidence (CMB radiation, red shift, etc.). It does not propose creation "from nothing" in a philosophical sense. It relies on the laws of physics operating under extreme conditions. You are also making the error of presupposing that our universe came from nothing. The "nothing" involved in quantum fluctuation theories is a very specific, technical form of physical reality, not an absolute void.

In my view, the most telling part of your statement is your concern of “worldview collapsing.” The profound difficulty involved in potentially dismantling an entire understanding of reality underscores that, for many, the belief structure is inextricably linked to an emotional need for order, meaning, and purpose. This attachment often manifests as a fear-based response. The fear of chaos, the fear of the unknown, and perhaps most centrally, the fear that life might be meaningless without a divine architect.

The universe is a physical phenomenon operating according to natural laws. It has no inherent objective purpose or meaning built into it. This view does not claim life is meaningless. Rather, it posits that life has no pre-ordained or transcendent meaning. Purpose in life is the challenge that we human beings have to actively create and define for ourselves through connection, experience, passion, and contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember how turbulent the world of First-Century Judea was. This was a time of immense political tension and foreign occupation, leading to widespread Jewish apocalypticism, the belief that God would soon intervene dramatically to destroy evil forces, restore Israel, and establish His eternal Kingdom. There was also widespread discontent with the Jerusalem Temple establishment. This resulted in many competing Jewish sects at the time.

In addition, esoteric mystery cults were common in the wider Greco-Roman world. These groups offered a personal religious experience, often promising salvation or a blessed afterlife, which was distinct from the public, state-sponsored worship of the time. Within esoteric groups, members were often initiated into various levels of secret knowledge (Gnosis). Groups like the community at Qumran (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls), had rigid hierarchical structures and specific titles for their leadership ("the Teacher of Righteousness," "Sons of Light," etc.).

At this time, it was also remarkably common for individuals to claim authority within a religion based on direct divine revelations or visions rather than inherited lineage or institutional appointment. Within the context of Jewish apocalyptic movements and the surrounding Greco-Roman mystery cults, personal charismatic experience was a powerful credential, often seen as a direct calling from God that superseded traditional structures. This emphasis on immediate spiritual insight facilitated a dynamic religious landscape where new leaders and sects could emerge rapidly, each validated by the claim of a unique and personal encounter with the divine.

Within all this context, the first “Christians” were a small group started in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. They were devout Jews who adhered strictly to the Mosaic Law. These early “Jewish Christians” viewed themselves as the true remnant of Israel, called to a higher standard of holiness and adherence to the Torah.

These Jewish Christians were also an esoteric mystery cult, featuring secret teachings, hidden rituals, and an initiation process for members. A "brother" of the Lord might be a title reserved for those who had reached the highest level of understanding of the Christ, differentiating them from ordinary believers.

Within this community, one of their key leaders was James, referred to as "James the Just" (or James the Righteous) in early extra-canonical Christian sources (like Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius's Church History). These sources describe him as an ascetic who never cut his hair, drank no wine, and spent so much time praying in the Temple that his knees became calloused like a camel's. This rigorous lifestyle and commitment to poverty provided a compelling model of piety that attracted like-minded Jews seeking a purer form of religious observance.

James, as a "pillar" (Galatians 2:9), was the top earthly authority, and his unique title reflected that supreme status. James’s authority (see previous point on authority through revelation) was reinforced by a visionary experience (mentioned briefly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7) that validated his role as the movement’s head. His title, “the Lord’s brother,” has sparked centuries of debate. In Koine Greek, adelphos (“brother”) could mean biological sibling, close relative, or spiritual kin. Many scholars argue that Paul used it as an honorific title, marking James as the primary leader of the sect, not necessarily a blood relative of Jesus. This interpretation aligns with the movement’s hierarchical structure, where titles signified levels of esoteric knowledge and authority.

Simultaneously, there was a Hellenistic Jew named Paul who was proselytizing throughout the Roman Empire. Paul was also a visionary mystic whose faith centered on a savior figure named "Christ" or "Jesus.” ***(Conveniently, the name Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek name Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), which is itself a transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua (ישוע). This was a common name among Jews in the First Century. The name's etymological meaning is significant, as it summarizes the core theological message of the New Testament: "YHWH is salvation" or "The Lord saves".)***

Paul’s Christ was revealed to him through spiritual visions (again, see point on authority through revelation) and scriptural interpretation (e.g., from Isaiah or the Book of Wisdom). Paul’s "Gospel" does not discuss a historical ministry in Palestine, but about a pre-existent divine being who died in the heavens to redeem humanity.

Paul also claimed authority through his dramatic vision on the road to Damascus which helped to propel him into the early leadership. Paul’s version was revolutionary - salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law. For Paul, distinctions like “Jew nor Greek” were erased in Christ, creating a universal faith accessible to all. His theology centered on a cosmic savior, revealed through scripture and mystical experience. This message resonated with Gentiles across the Roman Empire, making Paul’s version of Christianity far more adaptable and expansive than James’s.

Another early leader, Peter (Cephas), was the movement’s spokesperson. His authority, like James’s and Paul’s, rested on mystical experiences interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ. Peter’s role was primarily as “apostle to the Jews,” but he also acted as a diplomat, navigating the growing rift between James’s law-observant faction and Paul’s radical, law-free mission. James insisted that “faith without works is dead,” emphasizing ethical action as the fruit of genuine belief. Paul countered that justification came “by faith, not by works,” defining works as ritual observances like circumcision. This resulted in the Incident at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from Gentile fellowship under pressure from James’s delegates. Later theologians harmonized these views, but it shows the diversity and conflict within the earliest Christian movement.

James’s martyrdom around 62 CE and the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE decapitated the mother church. The Jerusalem based Jewish-Christian center dissolved, and Paul’s Gentile-friendly, portable theology became dominant. Christianity’s survival and global spread owe more to Paul’s universal vision than to James’s original, historically Jewish rooted form.

As the movement expanded, the Gospel writers faced a challenge of how to give their heavenly savior an earthly biography. Thus, they crafted narratives rich in symbolism and prophecy, weaving Old Testament motifs with Greco-Roman literary tropes. Luke’s census story and Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem and Massacre of the Innocents are prime examples of dramatic plot devices with no historical basis, designed to fulfill messianic prophecies and elevate Jesus as a new Moses-like figure. It is clear that these narratives are later literary creations, not part of the original tradition centered on visions and eschatological urgency.

The historical bedrock of Christianity begins not with a Galilean preacher, but with a visionary sect led by James the Just in Jerusalem. Its strict Jewish ethos and apocalyptic fervor shaped the earliest community. Yet, it was Paul’s radical reinterpretation, a faith unbound by the Law, centered on a cosmic Christ, that ensured Christianity’s survival and growth. The Gospels, written generations later, retrofitted this mystical savior with an earthly life, creating the Jesus of history as we know him today, a figure born as much from literary imagination as from historical memory.

No, that description is not considered accurate by mainstream historians of early Christianity.
But: It does reflect a minority, mythicist-leaning interpretation (associated with writers like Burton Mack, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier). Most scholars-across secular, Jewish, Christian, and atheist backgrounds-reject the idea that Jesus began as a purely heavenly being invented later.

What Mainstream Scholars Agree On
(Think: Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Dale Allison, John Meier, Géza Vermes)

1. Jesus was a real apocalyptic Jewish preacher from Galilee.

There is overwhelming consensus-shared by religious and nonreligious historians-that:
-A historical Jesus existed
-He preached in Galilee
-He gathered tollowers
-He was executed by Pontius Pilate around 30 CE

This conclusion rests on multiple independent textual streams (Mark, Q material, Paul's references to Jesus' family, Josephus, etc.).

The claim that Christianity began only with a visionary sect and only later created an earthly Jesus is not accepted by specialists in the field.

2. The Infancy Narratives are theological, not historical.

This is partially correct.

Scholars overwhelmingly agree that:
1 Luke’s census as described did not historically occur.
-Matthew's Star of Bethlehem is not a historical astronomical event.

The Massacre of the Innocents is not supported by evidence outside Matthew
These narratives are understood as literary/ theological constructions designed to:
-Tie Jesus to Davidic lineage
-Fulfill scriptural motifs
-Present Jesus as a "new Moses" or new
Israel

So yes, this part aligns with mainstream scholarship.

But it does not imply the entire life of Jesus was invented.

3. Paul's theology is innovative.

Mainstream scholars agree that Paul:
-Emphasized faith in Christ over adherence to the full Mosaic Law
-Presented Jesus in cosmic, exalted terms
-Played a major role in spreading Christianity among Gentiles

But this is NOT understood as "Paul invented
Christianity."

Rather: he reinterpreted an already existing movement following a real, earthly Jesus.

—>What the Excerpt Claims That Is Not Accepted by Historians

1. "The earliest movement followed a heavenly savior with no earthly life."
This is mythicist theory, not mainstream scholarship.
Paul:

-Mentions Jesus' birth ("born of a woman,"Gal 4:4)
-Mentions his Jewish identity
-Mentions brothers (James, "the brother of the Lord," Gal 1:19)
-Refers to his earthly teachings
- Refers to the Last Supper tradition
-Refers to his crucifixion under earthly powers


2. "The Gospels retrofitted a fictional biography onto a cosmic Christ."

Scholars see it differently:
-The Gospels shape memory through theology and storytelling
-But they do not invent Jesus wholesale
-They reflect real traditions, expanded and interpreted
-Think: not biography vs. fiction, but memory shaped by theology, like ancient biographies of other figures.

3. "The historical bedrock is James the Just's visionary sect."

James was an important early leader.

But there's no evidence he founded a religion around visions of a heavenly Christ.

Instead:
—>James leads the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death
——>He sees himself preserving Jesus' teachings within a Jewish framework
———>Paul's letters indicate continuity with Jesus' earthly ministry, not invention of a mythic Christ

What Historians Do Think the Gospels Are

The best model is:
1. Jesus existed as a real preacher.
2. Early followers experienced visions of him after his death
(very similar to how ancient Jewish apocalyptic groups understood martyrdom and vindication).
3. Traditions about him circulated orally for decades.
4. The Gospel writers shaped those traditions into theological narratives, adding symbolic material (infancy stories, miracle patterns, scriptural fulfillment).

This view explains:
A. Both the mythic/symbolic layers
B. And the historical core beneath them
without requiring Jesus to be invented wholesale.

Again, cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

The claim of overwhelming consensus is true only within the bubble of biblical studies. This consensus often relies on a minimal-facts argument that assumes a historical core without sufficient skeptical scrutiny of the sources.

There are no independent textual streams. The Gospels are heavily interdependent and were written decades after the alleged events, reflecting theological agendas, not unbiased historical records. Matthew and Luke used Mark, meaning they are not independent confirmation of Mark's claims. They are derivations and edits of Mark consistent with different communities’ viewpoints and different interpretations over the course of time. Also, Q is pure speculation. There is no proof it existed.

No one said Paul invented Christianity. His primary contribution was the divide between his “belief only” approach versus James’ “works based” approach. Paul's letters conspicuously lack details of an earthly ministry, which is precisely the problem for historicists.

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects? Would they not have provided more support for the message he was trying to spread? It is clear that there was no oral tradition that kept the memory of such events and sayings since they had not been created yet.

Paul's emphasis on a cosmic, exalted Christ suggests the initial movement was focused on a spiritual savior known through revelation and scripture, not memory of a living man. Paul was a Roman citizen with a Hellenistic worldview, and he integrated Jesus into a "dying and rising god" mythotype common in the ancient world, where suffering and triumph over death were core themes.

As noted several times now by other posts, the non-Christian sources are highly suspect. These are not settled facts as you continue to try to claim.

At least you admit that the Infancy Narratives are fiction. This demonstrates that early Christians were perfectly willing and able to invent entire biographical narratives about Jesus when it suited their theological needs. Once we establish the authors are willing to create fiction, we must rigorously question every other claim using the same high standard of evidence.

The model that best explains all the evidence is the one that posits a mythical origin for Jesus. The consensus view requires special pleading and a willingness to ignore rigorous criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This conclusion rests on multiple independent textual streams (Mark, Q material, Paul's references to Jesus' family, Josephus, etc.).

False. Religious writings aren’t independent.

Everything you put here has already been critically disputed. Stating the same previous argument (primarily an argument from authority) without directly addressing any of the critical points indicates a lack of serious debate.

Remember, the scholarly consensus once vehemently argued that the Earth was the center of the universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

Following on, to avoid further distractions to Jesus topic is there a link you can give that explains Atheism for Dummies? TIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember how turbulent the world of First-Century Judea was. This was a time of immense political tension and foreign occupation, leading to widespread Jewish apocalypticism, the belief that God would soon intervene dramatically to destroy evil forces, restore Israel, and establish His eternal Kingdom. There was also widespread discontent with the Jerusalem Temple establishment. This resulted in many competing Jewish sects at the time.

In addition, esoteric mystery cults were common in the wider Greco-Roman world. These groups offered a personal religious experience, often promising salvation or a blessed afterlife, which was distinct from the public, state-sponsored worship of the time. Within esoteric groups, members were often initiated into various levels of secret knowledge (Gnosis). Groups like the community at Qumran (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls), had rigid hierarchical structures and specific titles for their leadership ("the Teacher of Righteousness," "Sons of Light," etc.).

At this time, it was also remarkably common for individuals to claim authority within a religion based on direct divine revelations or visions rather than inherited lineage or institutional appointment. Within the context of Jewish apocalyptic movements and the surrounding Greco-Roman mystery cults, personal charismatic experience was a powerful credential, often seen as a direct calling from God that superseded traditional structures. This emphasis on immediate spiritual insight facilitated a dynamic religious landscape where new leaders and sects could emerge rapidly, each validated by the claim of a unique and personal encounter with the divine.

Within all this context, the first “Christians” were a small group started in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. They were devout Jews who adhered strictly to the Mosaic Law. These early “Jewish Christians” viewed themselves as the true remnant of Israel, called to a higher standard of holiness and adherence to the Torah.

These Jewish Christians were also an esoteric mystery cult, featuring secret teachings, hidden rituals, and an initiation process for members. A "brother" of the Lord might be a title reserved for those who had reached the highest level of understanding of the Christ, differentiating them from ordinary believers.

Within this community, one of their key leaders was James, referred to as "James the Just" (or James the Righteous) in early extra-canonical Christian sources (like Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius's Church History). These sources describe him as an ascetic who never cut his hair, drank no wine, and spent so much time praying in the Temple that his knees became calloused like a camel's. This rigorous lifestyle and commitment to poverty provided a compelling model of piety that attracted like-minded Jews seeking a purer form of religious observance.

James, as a "pillar" (Galatians 2:9), was the top earthly authority, and his unique title reflected that supreme status. James’s authority (see previous point on authority through revelation) was reinforced by a visionary experience (mentioned briefly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7) that validated his role as the movement’s head. His title, “the Lord’s brother,” has sparked centuries of debate. In Koine Greek, adelphos (“brother”) could mean biological sibling, close relative, or spiritual kin. Many scholars argue that Paul used it as an honorific title, marking James as the primary leader of the sect, not necessarily a blood relative of Jesus. This interpretation aligns with the movement’s hierarchical structure, where titles signified levels of esoteric knowledge and authority.

Simultaneously, there was a Hellenistic Jew named Paul who was proselytizing throughout the Roman Empire. Paul was also a visionary mystic whose faith centered on a savior figure named "Christ" or "Jesus.” ***(Conveniently, the name Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek name Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), which is itself a transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua (ישוע). This was a common name among Jews in the First Century. The name's etymological meaning is significant, as it summarizes the core theological message of the New Testament: "YHWH is salvation" or "The Lord saves".)***

Paul’s Christ was revealed to him through spiritual visions (again, see point on authority through revelation) and scriptural interpretation (e.g., from Isaiah or the Book of Wisdom). Paul’s "Gospel" does not discuss a historical ministry in Palestine, but about a pre-existent divine being who died in the heavens to redeem humanity.

Paul also claimed authority through his dramatic vision on the road to Damascus which helped to propel him into the early leadership. Paul’s version was revolutionary - salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law. For Paul, distinctions like “Jew nor Greek” were erased in Christ, creating a universal faith accessible to all. His theology centered on a cosmic savior, revealed through scripture and mystical experience. This message resonated with Gentiles across the Roman Empire, making Paul’s version of Christianity far more adaptable and expansive than James’s.

Another early leader, Peter (Cephas), was the movement’s spokesperson. His authority, like James’s and Paul’s, rested on mystical experiences interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ. Peter’s role was primarily as “apostle to the Jews,” but he also acted as a diplomat, navigating the growing rift between James’s law-observant faction and Paul’s radical, law-free mission. James insisted that “faith without works is dead,” emphasizing ethical action as the fruit of genuine belief. Paul countered that justification came “by faith, not by works,” defining works as ritual observances like circumcision. This resulted in the Incident at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from Gentile fellowship under pressure from James’s delegates. Later theologians harmonized these views, but it shows the diversity and conflict within the earliest Christian movement.

James’s martyrdom around 62 CE and the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE decapitated the mother church. The Jerusalem based Jewish-Christian center dissolved, and Paul’s Gentile-friendly, portable theology became dominant. Christianity’s survival and global spread owe more to Paul’s universal vision than to James’s original, historically Jewish rooted form.

As the movement expanded, the Gospel writers faced a challenge of how to give their heavenly savior an earthly biography. Thus, they crafted narratives rich in symbolism and prophecy, weaving Old Testament motifs with Greco-Roman literary tropes. Luke’s census story and Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem and Massacre of the Innocents are prime examples of dramatic plot devices with no historical basis, designed to fulfill messianic prophecies and elevate Jesus as a new Moses-like figure. It is clear that these narratives are later literary creations, not part of the original tradition centered on visions and eschatological urgency.

The historical bedrock of Christianity begins not with a Galilean preacher, but with a visionary sect led by James the Just in Jerusalem. Its strict Jewish ethos and apocalyptic fervor shaped the earliest community. Yet, it was Paul’s radical reinterpretation, a faith unbound by the Law, centered on a cosmic Christ, that ensured Christianity’s survival and growth. The Gospels, written generations later, retrofitted this mystical savior with an earthly life, creating the Jesus of history as we know him today, a figure born as much from literary imagination as from historical memory.

No, that description is not considered accurate by mainstream historians of early Christianity.
But: It does reflect a minority, mythicist-leaning interpretation (associated with writers like Burton Mack, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier). Most scholars-across secular, Jewish, Christian, and atheist backgrounds-reject the idea that Jesus began as a purely heavenly being invented later.

What Mainstream Scholars Agree On
(Think: Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Dale Allison, John Meier, Géza Vermes)

1. Jesus was a real apocalyptic Jewish preacher from Galilee.

There is overwhelming consensus-shared by religious and nonreligious historians-that:
-A historical Jesus existed
-He preached in Galilee
-He gathered tollowers
-He was executed by Pontius Pilate around 30 CE

This conclusion rests on multiple independent textual streams (Mark, Q material, Paul's references to Jesus' family, Josephus, etc.).

The claim that Christianity began only with a visionary sect and only later created an earthly Jesus is not accepted by specialists in the field.

2. The Infancy Narratives are theological, not historical.

This is partially correct.

Scholars overwhelmingly agree that:
1 Luke’s census as described did not historically occur.
-Matthew's Star of Bethlehem is not a historical astronomical event.

The Massacre of the Innocents is not supported by evidence outside Matthew
These narratives are understood as literary/ theological constructions designed to:
-Tie Jesus to Davidic lineage
-Fulfill scriptural motifs
-Present Jesus as a "new Moses" or new
Israel

So yes, this part aligns with mainstream scholarship.

But it does not imply the entire life of Jesus was invented.

3. Paul's theology is innovative.

Mainstream scholars agree that Paul:
-Emphasized faith in Christ over adherence to the full Mosaic Law
-Presented Jesus in cosmic, exalted terms
-Played a major role in spreading Christianity among Gentiles

But this is NOT understood as "Paul invented
Christianity."

Rather: he reinterpreted an already existing movement following a real, earthly Jesus.

—>What the Excerpt Claims That Is Not Accepted by Historians

1. "The earliest movement followed a heavenly savior with no earthly life."
This is mythicist theory, not mainstream scholarship.
Paul:

-Mentions Jesus' birth ("born of a woman,"Gal 4:4)
-Mentions his Jewish identity
-Mentions brothers (James, "the brother of the Lord," Gal 1:19)
-Refers to his earthly teachings
- Refers to the Last Supper tradition
-Refers to his crucifixion under earthly powers


2. "The Gospels retrofitted a fictional biography onto a cosmic Christ."

Scholars see it differently:
-The Gospels shape memory through theology and storytelling
-But they do not invent Jesus wholesale
-They reflect real traditions, expanded and interpreted
-Think: not biography vs. fiction, but memory shaped by theology, like ancient biographies of other figures.

3. "The historical bedrock is James the Just's visionary sect."

James was an important early leader.

But there's no evidence he founded a religion around visions of a heavenly Christ.

Instead:
—>James leads the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death
——>He sees himself preserving Jesus' teachings within a Jewish framework
———>Paul's letters indicate continuity with Jesus' earthly ministry, not invention of a mythic Christ

What Historians Do Think the Gospels Are

The best model is:
1. Jesus existed as a real preacher.
2. Early followers experienced visions of him after his death
(very similar to how ancient Jewish apocalyptic groups understood martyrdom and vindication).
3. Traditions about him circulated orally for decades.
4. The Gospel writers shaped those traditions into theological narratives, adding symbolic material (infancy stories, miracle patterns, scriptural fulfillment).

This view explains:
A. Both the mythic/symbolic layers
B. And the historical core beneath them
without requiring Jesus to be invented wholesale.

Again, cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

The claim of overwhelming consensus is true only within the bubble of biblical studies. This consensus often relies on a minimal-facts argument that assumes a historical core without sufficient skeptical scrutiny of the sources.

There are no independent textual streams. The Gospels are heavily interdependent and were written decades after the alleged events, reflecting theological agendas, not unbiased historical records. Matthew and Luke used Mark, meaning they are not independent confirmation of Mark's claims. They are derivations and edits of Mark consistent with different communities’ viewpoints and different interpretations over the course of time. Also, Q is pure speculation. There is no proof it existed.

No one said Paul invented Christianity. His primary contribution was the divide between his “belief only” approach versus James’ “works based” approach. Paul's letters conspicuously lack details of an earthly ministry, which is precisely the problem for historicists.

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects? Would they not have provided more support for the message he was trying to spread? It is clear that there was no oral tradition that kept the memory of such events and sayings since they had not been created yet.

Paul's emphasis on a cosmic, exalted Christ suggests the initial movement was focused on a spiritual savior known through revelation and scripture, not memory of a living man. Paul was a Roman citizen with a Hellenistic worldview, and he integrated Jesus into a "dying and rising god" mythotype common in the ancient world, where suffering and triumph over death were core themes.

As noted several times now by other posts, the non-Christian sources are highly suspect. These are not settled facts as you continue to try to claim.

At least you admit that the Infancy Narratives are fiction. This demonstrates that early Christians were perfectly willing and able to invent entire biographical narratives about Jesus when it suited their theological needs. Once we establish the authors are willing to create fiction, we must rigorously question every other claim using the same high standard of evidence.

The model that best explains all the evidence is the one that posits a mythical origin for Jesus. The consensus view requires special pleading and a willingness to ignore rigorous criticism.

I'll add to this portion. Paul's silence is one of the most difficult hurdles for the historicist position. Paul is constantly arguing with his churches about ethics, marriage, divorce, and food. Yet, he never quotes Jesus. For example, Paul argues about whether to pay taxes (Romans 13), he doesn't say, "As Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar.'" Another, Paul discusses divorce (1 Cor 7), he says "I, not the Lord," then provides his own opinion, rather than quoting the famous Jesus-teaching on divorce found in the Gospels.

Paul doesn't quote parables or teachings because they weren't invented yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember how turbulent the world of First-Century Judea was. This was a time of immense political tension and foreign occupation, leading to widespread Jewish apocalypticism, the belief that God would soon intervene dramatically to destroy evil forces, restore Israel, and establish His eternal Kingdom. There was also widespread discontent with the Jerusalem Temple establishment. This resulted in many competing Jewish sects at the time.

In addition, esoteric mystery cults were common in the wider Greco-Roman world. These groups offered a personal religious experience, often promising salvation or a blessed afterlife, which was distinct from the public, state-sponsored worship of the time. Within esoteric groups, members were often initiated into various levels of secret knowledge (Gnosis). Groups like the community at Qumran (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls), had rigid hierarchical structures and specific titles for their leadership ("the Teacher of Righteousness," "Sons of Light," etc.).

At this time, it was also remarkably common for individuals to claim authority within a religion based on direct divine revelations or visions rather than inherited lineage or institutional appointment. Within the context of Jewish apocalyptic movements and the surrounding Greco-Roman mystery cults, personal charismatic experience was a powerful credential, often seen as a direct calling from God that superseded traditional structures. This emphasis on immediate spiritual insight facilitated a dynamic religious landscape where new leaders and sects could emerge rapidly, each validated by the claim of a unique and personal encounter with the divine.

Within all this context, the first “Christians” were a small group started in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. They were devout Jews who adhered strictly to the Mosaic Law. These early “Jewish Christians” viewed themselves as the true remnant of Israel, called to a higher standard of holiness and adherence to the Torah.

These Jewish Christians were also an esoteric mystery cult, featuring secret teachings, hidden rituals, and an initiation process for members. A "brother" of the Lord might be a title reserved for those who had reached the highest level of understanding of the Christ, differentiating them from ordinary believers.

Within this community, one of their key leaders was James, referred to as "James the Just" (or James the Righteous) in early extra-canonical Christian sources (like Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius's Church History). These sources describe him as an ascetic who never cut his hair, drank no wine, and spent so much time praying in the Temple that his knees became calloused like a camel's. This rigorous lifestyle and commitment to poverty provided a compelling model of piety that attracted like-minded Jews seeking a purer form of religious observance.

James, as a "pillar" (Galatians 2:9), was the top earthly authority, and his unique title reflected that supreme status. James’s authority (see previous point on authority through revelation) was reinforced by a visionary experience (mentioned briefly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7) that validated his role as the movement’s head. His title, “the Lord’s brother,” has sparked centuries of debate. In Koine Greek, adelphos (“brother”) could mean biological sibling, close relative, or spiritual kin. Many scholars argue that Paul used it as an honorific title, marking James as the primary leader of the sect, not necessarily a blood relative of Jesus. This interpretation aligns with the movement’s hierarchical structure, where titles signified levels of esoteric knowledge and authority.

Simultaneously, there was a Hellenistic Jew named Paul who was proselytizing throughout the Roman Empire. Paul was also a visionary mystic whose faith centered on a savior figure named "Christ" or "Jesus.” ***(Conveniently, the name Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek name Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), which is itself a transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua (ישוע). This was a common name among Jews in the First Century. The name's etymological meaning is significant, as it summarizes the core theological message of the New Testament: "YHWH is salvation" or "The Lord saves".)***

Paul’s Christ was revealed to him through spiritual visions (again, see point on authority through revelation) and scriptural interpretation (e.g., from Isaiah or the Book of Wisdom). Paul’s "Gospel" does not discuss a historical ministry in Palestine, but about a pre-existent divine being who died in the heavens to redeem humanity.

Paul also claimed authority through his dramatic vision on the road to Damascus which helped to propel him into the early leadership. Paul’s version was revolutionary - salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law. For Paul, distinctions like “Jew nor Greek” were erased in Christ, creating a universal faith accessible to all. His theology centered on a cosmic savior, revealed through scripture and mystical experience. This message resonated with Gentiles across the Roman Empire, making Paul’s version of Christianity far more adaptable and expansive than James’s.

Another early leader, Peter (Cephas), was the movement’s spokesperson. His authority, like James’s and Paul’s, rested on mystical experiences interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ. Peter’s role was primarily as “apostle to the Jews,” but he also acted as a diplomat, navigating the growing rift between James’s law-observant faction and Paul’s radical, law-free mission. James insisted that “faith without works is dead,” emphasizing ethical action as the fruit of genuine belief. Paul countered that justification came “by faith, not by works,” defining works as ritual observances like circumcision. This resulted in the Incident at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from Gentile fellowship under pressure from James’s delegates. Later theologians harmonized these views, but it shows the diversity and conflict within the earliest Christian movement.

James’s martyrdom around 62 CE and the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE decapitated the mother church. The Jerusalem based Jewish-Christian center dissolved, and Paul’s Gentile-friendly, portable theology became dominant. Christianity’s survival and global spread owe more to Paul’s universal vision than to James’s original, historically Jewish rooted form.

As the movement expanded, the Gospel writers faced a challenge of how to give their heavenly savior an earthly biography. Thus, they crafted narratives rich in symbolism and prophecy, weaving Old Testament motifs with Greco-Roman literary tropes. Luke’s census story and Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem and Massacre of the Innocents are prime examples of dramatic plot devices with no historical basis, designed to fulfill messianic prophecies and elevate Jesus as a new Moses-like figure. It is clear that these narratives are later literary creations, not part of the original tradition centered on visions and eschatological urgency.

The historical bedrock of Christianity begins not with a Galilean preacher, but with a visionary sect led by James the Just in Jerusalem. Its strict Jewish ethos and apocalyptic fervor shaped the earliest community. Yet, it was Paul’s radical reinterpretation, a faith unbound by the Law, centered on a cosmic Christ, that ensured Christianity’s survival and growth. The Gospels, written generations later, retrofitted this mystical savior with an earthly life, creating the Jesus of history as we know him today, a figure born as much from literary imagination as from historical memory.

No, that description is not considered accurate by mainstream historians of early Christianity.
But: It does reflect a minority, mythicist-leaning interpretation (associated with writers like Burton Mack, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier). Most scholars-across secular, Jewish, Christian, and atheist backgrounds-reject the idea that Jesus began as a purely heavenly being invented later.

What Mainstream Scholars Agree On
(Think: Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Dale Allison, John Meier, Géza Vermes)

1. Jesus was a real apocalyptic Jewish preacher from Galilee.

There is overwhelming consensus-shared by religious and nonreligious historians-that:
-A historical Jesus existed
-He preached in Galilee
-He gathered tollowers
-He was executed by Pontius Pilate around 30 CE

This conclusion rests on multiple independent textual streams (Mark, Q material, Paul's references to Jesus' family, Josephus, etc.).

The claim that Christianity began only with a visionary sect and only later created an earthly Jesus is not accepted by specialists in the field.

2. The Infancy Narratives are theological, not historical.

This is partially correct.

Scholars overwhelmingly agree that:
1 Luke’s census as described did not historically occur.
-Matthew's Star of Bethlehem is not a historical astronomical event.

The Massacre of the Innocents is not supported by evidence outside Matthew
These narratives are understood as literary/ theological constructions designed to:
-Tie Jesus to Davidic lineage
-Fulfill scriptural motifs
-Present Jesus as a "new Moses" or new
Israel

So yes, this part aligns with mainstream scholarship.

But it does not imply the entire life of Jesus was invented.

3. Paul's theology is innovative.

Mainstream scholars agree that Paul:
-Emphasized faith in Christ over adherence to the full Mosaic Law
-Presented Jesus in cosmic, exalted terms
-Played a major role in spreading Christianity among Gentiles

But this is NOT understood as "Paul invented
Christianity."

Rather: he reinterpreted an already existing movement following a real, earthly Jesus.

—>What the Excerpt Claims That Is Not Accepted by Historians

1. "The earliest movement followed a heavenly savior with no earthly life."
This is mythicist theory, not mainstream scholarship.
Paul:

-Mentions Jesus' birth ("born of a woman,"Gal 4:4)
-Mentions his Jewish identity
-Mentions brothers (James, "the brother of the Lord," Gal 1:19)
-Refers to his earthly teachings
- Refers to the Last Supper tradition
-Refers to his crucifixion under earthly powers


2. "The Gospels retrofitted a fictional biography onto a cosmic Christ."

Scholars see it differently:
-The Gospels shape memory through theology and storytelling
-But they do not invent Jesus wholesale
-They reflect real traditions, expanded and interpreted
-Think: not biography vs. fiction, but memory shaped by theology, like ancient biographies of other figures.

3. "The historical bedrock is James the Just's visionary sect."

James was an important early leader.

But there's no evidence he founded a religion around visions of a heavenly Christ.

Instead:
—>James leads the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death
——>He sees himself preserving Jesus' teachings within a Jewish framework
———>Paul's letters indicate continuity with Jesus' earthly ministry, not invention of a mythic Christ

What Historians Do Think the Gospels Are

The best model is:
1. Jesus existed as a real preacher.
2. Early followers experienced visions of him after his death
(very similar to how ancient Jewish apocalyptic groups understood martyrdom and vindication).
3. Traditions about him circulated orally for decades.
4. The Gospel writers shaped those traditions into theological narratives, adding symbolic material (infancy stories, miracle patterns, scriptural fulfillment).

This view explains:
A. Both the mythic/symbolic layers
B. And the historical core beneath them
without requiring Jesus to be invented wholesale.

Again, cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

The claim of overwhelming consensus is true only within the bubble of biblical studies. This consensus often relies on a minimal-facts argument that assumes a historical core without sufficient skeptical scrutiny of the sources.

There are no independent textual streams. The Gospels are heavily interdependent and were written decades after the alleged events, reflecting theological agendas, not unbiased historical records. Matthew and Luke used Mark, meaning they are not independent confirmation of Mark's claims. They are derivations and edits of Mark consistent with different communities’ viewpoints and different interpretations over the course of time. Also, Q is pure speculation. There is no proof it existed.

No one said Paul invented Christianity. His primary contribution was the divide between his “belief only” approach versus James’ “works based” approach. Paul's letters conspicuously lack details of an earthly ministry, which is precisely the problem for historicists.

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects? Would they not have provided more support for the message he was trying to spread? It is clear that there was no oral tradition that kept the memory of such events and sayings since they had not been created yet.

Paul's emphasis on a cosmic, exalted Christ suggests the initial movement was focused on a spiritual savior known through revelation and scripture, not memory of a living man. Paul was a Roman citizen with a Hellenistic worldview, and he integrated Jesus into a "dying and rising god" mythotype common in the ancient world, where suffering and triumph over death were core themes.

As noted several times now by other posts, the non-Christian sources are highly suspect. These are not settled facts as you continue to try to claim.

At least you admit that the Infancy Narratives are fiction. This demonstrates that early Christians were perfectly willing and able to invent entire biographical narratives about Jesus when it suited their theological needs. Once we establish the authors are willing to create fiction, we must rigorously question every other claim using the same high standard of evidence.

The model that best explains all the evidence is the one that posits a mythical origin for Jesus. The consensus view requires special pleading and a willingness to ignore rigorous criticism.

I'll add to this portion. Paul's silence is one of the most difficult hurdles for the historicist position. Paul is constantly arguing with his churches about ethics, marriage, divorce, and food. Yet, he never quotes Jesus. For example, Paul argues about whether to pay taxes (Romans 13), he doesn't say, "As Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar.'" Another, Paul discusses divorce (1 Cor 7), he says "I, not the Lord," then provides his own opinion, rather than quoting the famous Jesus-teaching on divorce found in the Gospels.

Paul doesn't quote parables or teachings because they weren't invented yet.

So, whether or not a guy named Jesus existed is not the issue. The issue is : Is he the son of God? And the answer is no, unless you believe in God, of course, and that he had a son. Lots of people were taught that. Some of them never believed it and others stopped believing after they got older. Some people still believe it, even though we have so much more scientific knowledge that we had then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember how turbulent the world of First-Century Judea was. This was a time of immense political tension and foreign occupation, leading to widespread Jewish apocalypticism, the belief that God would soon intervene dramatically to destroy evil forces, restore Israel, and establish His eternal Kingdom. There was also widespread discontent with the Jerusalem Temple establishment. This resulted in many competing Jewish sects at the time.

In addition, esoteric mystery cults were common in the wider Greco-Roman world. These groups offered a personal religious experience, often promising salvation or a blessed afterlife, which was distinct from the public, state-sponsored worship of the time. Within esoteric groups, members were often initiated into various levels of secret knowledge (Gnosis). Groups like the community at Qumran (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls), had rigid hierarchical structures and specific titles for their leadership ("the Teacher of Righteousness," "Sons of Light," etc.).

At this time, it was also remarkably common for individuals to claim authority within a religion based on direct divine revelations or visions rather than inherited lineage or institutional appointment. Within the context of Jewish apocalyptic movements and the surrounding Greco-Roman mystery cults, personal charismatic experience was a powerful credential, often seen as a direct calling from God that superseded traditional structures. This emphasis on immediate spiritual insight facilitated a dynamic religious landscape where new leaders and sects could emerge rapidly, each validated by the claim of a unique and personal encounter with the divine.

Within all this context, the first “Christians” were a small group started in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. They were devout Jews who adhered strictly to the Mosaic Law. These early “Jewish Christians” viewed themselves as the true remnant of Israel, called to a higher standard of holiness and adherence to the Torah.

These Jewish Christians were also an esoteric mystery cult, featuring secret teachings, hidden rituals, and an initiation process for members. A "brother" of the Lord might be a title reserved for those who had reached the highest level of understanding of the Christ, differentiating them from ordinary believers.

Within this community, one of their key leaders was James, referred to as "James the Just" (or James the Righteous) in early extra-canonical Christian sources (like Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius's Church History). These sources describe him as an ascetic who never cut his hair, drank no wine, and spent so much time praying in the Temple that his knees became calloused like a camel's. This rigorous lifestyle and commitment to poverty provided a compelling model of piety that attracted like-minded Jews seeking a purer form of religious observance.

James, as a "pillar" (Galatians 2:9), was the top earthly authority, and his unique title reflected that supreme status. James’s authority (see previous point on authority through revelation) was reinforced by a visionary experience (mentioned briefly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7) that validated his role as the movement’s head. His title, “the Lord’s brother,” has sparked centuries of debate. In Koine Greek, adelphos (“brother”) could mean biological sibling, close relative, or spiritual kin. Many scholars argue that Paul used it as an honorific title, marking James as the primary leader of the sect, not necessarily a blood relative of Jesus. This interpretation aligns with the movement’s hierarchical structure, where titles signified levels of esoteric knowledge and authority.

Simultaneously, there was a Hellenistic Jew named Paul who was proselytizing throughout the Roman Empire. Paul was also a visionary mystic whose faith centered on a savior figure named "Christ" or "Jesus.” ***(Conveniently, the name Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek name Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), which is itself a transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua (ישוע). This was a common name among Jews in the First Century. The name's etymological meaning is significant, as it summarizes the core theological message of the New Testament: "YHWH is salvation" or "The Lord saves".)***

Paul’s Christ was revealed to him through spiritual visions (again, see point on authority through revelation) and scriptural interpretation (e.g., from Isaiah or the Book of Wisdom). Paul’s "Gospel" does not discuss a historical ministry in Palestine, but about a pre-existent divine being who died in the heavens to redeem humanity.

Paul also claimed authority through his dramatic vision on the road to Damascus which helped to propel him into the early leadership. Paul’s version was revolutionary - salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law. For Paul, distinctions like “Jew nor Greek” were erased in Christ, creating a universal faith accessible to all. His theology centered on a cosmic savior, revealed through scripture and mystical experience. This message resonated with Gentiles across the Roman Empire, making Paul’s version of Christianity far more adaptable and expansive than James’s.

Another early leader, Peter (Cephas), was the movement’s spokesperson. His authority, like James’s and Paul’s, rested on mystical experiences interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ. Peter’s role was primarily as “apostle to the Jews,” but he also acted as a diplomat, navigating the growing rift between James’s law-observant faction and Paul’s radical, law-free mission. James insisted that “faith without works is dead,” emphasizing ethical action as the fruit of genuine belief. Paul countered that justification came “by faith, not by works,” defining works as ritual observances like circumcision. This resulted in the Incident at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from Gentile fellowship under pressure from James’s delegates. Later theologians harmonized these views, but it shows the diversity and conflict within the earliest Christian movement.

James’s martyrdom around 62 CE and the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE decapitated the mother church. The Jerusalem based Jewish-Christian center dissolved, and Paul’s Gentile-friendly, portable theology became dominant. Christianity’s survival and global spread owe more to Paul’s universal vision than to James’s original, historically Jewish rooted form.

As the movement expanded, the Gospel writers faced a challenge of how to give their heavenly savior an earthly biography. Thus, they crafted narratives rich in symbolism and prophecy, weaving Old Testament motifs with Greco-Roman literary tropes. Luke’s census story and Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem and Massacre of the Innocents are prime examples of dramatic plot devices with no historical basis, designed to fulfill messianic prophecies and elevate Jesus as a new Moses-like figure. It is clear that these narratives are later literary creations, not part of the original tradition centered on visions and eschatological urgency.

The historical bedrock of Christianity begins not with a Galilean preacher, but with a visionary sect led by James the Just in Jerusalem. Its strict Jewish ethos and apocalyptic fervor shaped the earliest community. Yet, it was Paul’s radical reinterpretation, a faith unbound by the Law, centered on a cosmic Christ, that ensured Christianity’s survival and growth. The Gospels, written generations later, retrofitted this mystical savior with an earthly life, creating the Jesus of history as we know him today, a figure born as much from literary imagination as from historical memory.

No, that description is not considered accurate by mainstream historians of early Christianity.
But: It does reflect a minority, mythicist-leaning interpretation (associated with writers like Burton Mack, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier). Most scholars-across secular, Jewish, Christian, and atheist backgrounds-reject the idea that Jesus began as a purely heavenly being invented later.

What Mainstream Scholars Agree On
(Think: Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Dale Allison, John Meier, Géza Vermes)

1. Jesus was a real apocalyptic Jewish preacher from Galilee.

There is overwhelming consensus-shared by religious and nonreligious historians-that:
-A historical Jesus existed
-He preached in Galilee
-He gathered tollowers
-He was executed by Pontius Pilate around 30 CE

This conclusion rests on multiple independent textual streams (Mark, Q material, Paul's references to Jesus' family, Josephus, etc.).

The claim that Christianity began only with a visionary sect and only later created an earthly Jesus is not accepted by specialists in the field.

2. The Infancy Narratives are theological, not historical.

This is partially correct.

Scholars overwhelmingly agree that:
1 Luke’s census as described did not historically occur.
-Matthew's Star of Bethlehem is not a historical astronomical event.

The Massacre of the Innocents is not supported by evidence outside Matthew
These narratives are understood as literary/ theological constructions designed to:
-Tie Jesus to Davidic lineage
-Fulfill scriptural motifs
-Present Jesus as a "new Moses" or new
Israel

So yes, this part aligns with mainstream scholarship.

But it does not imply the entire life of Jesus was invented.

3. Paul's theology is innovative.

Mainstream scholars agree that Paul:
-Emphasized faith in Christ over adherence to the full Mosaic Law
-Presented Jesus in cosmic, exalted terms
-Played a major role in spreading Christianity among Gentiles

But this is NOT understood as "Paul invented
Christianity."

Rather: he reinterpreted an already existing movement following a real, earthly Jesus.

—>What the Excerpt Claims That Is Not Accepted by Historians

1. "The earliest movement followed a heavenly savior with no earthly life."
This is mythicist theory, not mainstream scholarship.
Paul:

-Mentions Jesus' birth ("born of a woman,"Gal 4:4)
-Mentions his Jewish identity
-Mentions brothers (James, "the brother of the Lord," Gal 1:19)
-Refers to his earthly teachings
- Refers to the Last Supper tradition
-Refers to his crucifixion under earthly powers


2. "The Gospels retrofitted a fictional biography onto a cosmic Christ."

Scholars see it differently:
-The Gospels shape memory through theology and storytelling
-But they do not invent Jesus wholesale
-They reflect real traditions, expanded and interpreted
-Think: not biography vs. fiction, but memory shaped by theology, like ancient biographies of other figures.

3. "The historical bedrock is James the Just's visionary sect."

James was an important early leader.

But there's no evidence he founded a religion around visions of a heavenly Christ.

Instead:
—>James leads the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death
——>He sees himself preserving Jesus' teachings within a Jewish framework
———>Paul's letters indicate continuity with Jesus' earthly ministry, not invention of a mythic Christ

What Historians Do Think the Gospels Are

The best model is:
1. Jesus existed as a real preacher.
2. Early followers experienced visions of him after his death
(very similar to how ancient Jewish apocalyptic groups understood martyrdom and vindication).
3. Traditions about him circulated orally for decades.
4. The Gospel writers shaped those traditions into theological narratives, adding symbolic material (infancy stories, miracle patterns, scriptural fulfillment).

This view explains:
A. Both the mythic/symbolic layers
B. And the historical core beneath them
without requiring Jesus to be invented wholesale.

Again, cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or presenting contested interpretations as fact. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

The claim of overwhelming consensus is true only within the bubble of biblical studies. This consensus often relies on a minimal-facts argument that assumes a historical core without sufficient skeptical scrutiny of the sources.

There are no independent textual streams. The Gospels are heavily interdependent and were written decades after the alleged events, reflecting theological agendas, not unbiased historical records. Matthew and Luke used Mark, meaning they are not independent confirmation of Mark's claims. They are derivations and edits of Mark consistent with different communities’ viewpoints and different interpretations over the course of time. Also, Q is pure speculation. There is no proof it existed.

No one said Paul invented Christianity. His primary contribution was the divide between his “belief only” approach versus James’ “works based” approach. Paul's letters conspicuously lack details of an earthly ministry, which is precisely the problem for historicists.

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects? Would they not have provided more support for the message he was trying to spread? It is clear that there was no oral tradition that kept the memory of such events and sayings since they had not been created yet.

Paul's emphasis on a cosmic, exalted Christ suggests the initial movement was focused on a spiritual savior known through revelation and scripture, not memory of a living man. Paul was a Roman citizen with a Hellenistic worldview, and he integrated Jesus into a "dying and rising god" mythotype common in the ancient world, where suffering and triumph over death were core themes.

As noted several times now by other posts, the non-Christian sources are highly suspect. These are not settled facts as you continue to try to claim.

At least you admit that the Infancy Narratives are fiction. This demonstrates that early Christians were perfectly willing and able to invent entire biographical narratives about Jesus when it suited their theological needs. Once we establish the authors are willing to create fiction, we must rigorously question every other claim using the same high standard of evidence.

The model that best explains all the evidence is the one that posits a mythical origin for Jesus. The consensus view requires special pleading and a willingness to ignore rigorous criticism.

I'll add to this portion. Paul's silence is one of the most difficult hurdles for the historicist position. Paul is constantly arguing with his churches about ethics, marriage, divorce, and food. Yet, he never quotes Jesus. For example, Paul argues about whether to pay taxes (Romans 13), he doesn't say, "As Jesus said, 'Render unto Caesar.'" Another, Paul discusses divorce (1 Cor 7), he says "I, not the Lord," then provides his own opinion, rather than quoting the famous Jesus-teaching on divorce found in the Gospels.

Paul doesn't quote parables or teachings because they weren't invented yet.

So, whether or not a guy named Jesus existed is not the issue. The issue is : Is he the son of God? And the answer is no, unless you believe in God, of course, and that he had a son. Lots of people were taught that. Some of them never believed it and others stopped believing after they got older. Some people still believe it, even though we have so much more scientific knowledge that we had then.

Umm... No.

The entire point of THIS thread is that very question - did a guy named Jesus actually exist. Please follow along if you want to comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember how turbulent the world of First-Century Judea was. This was a time of immense political tension and foreign occupation, leading to widespread Jewish apocalypticism, the belief that God would soon intervene dramatically to destroy evil forces, restore Israel, and establish His eternal Kingdom. There was also widespread discontent with the Jerusalem Temple establishment. This resulted in many competing Jewish sects at the time.

In addition, esoteric mystery cults were common in the wider Greco-Roman world. These groups offered a personal religious experience, often promising salvation or a blessed afterlife, which was distinct from the public, state-sponsored worship of the time. Within esoteric groups, members were often initiated into various levels of secret knowledge (Gnosis). Groups like the community at Qumran (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls), had rigid hierarchical structures and specific titles for their leadership ("the Teacher of Righteousness," "Sons of Light," etc.).

At this time, it was also remarkably common for individuals to claim authority within a religion based on direct divine revelations or visions rather than inherited lineage or institutional appointment. Within the context of Jewish apocalyptic movements and the surrounding Greco-Roman mystery cults, personal charismatic experience was a powerful credential, often seen as a direct calling from God that superseded traditional structures. This emphasis on immediate spiritual insight facilitated a dynamic religious landscape where new leaders and sects could emerge rapidly, each validated by the claim of a unique and personal encounter with the divine.

Within all this context, the first “Christians” were a small group started in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. They were devout Jews who adhered strictly to the Mosaic Law. These early “Jewish Christians” viewed themselves as the true remnant of Israel, called to a higher standard of holiness and adherence to the Torah.

These Jewish Christians were also an esoteric mystery cult, featuring secret teachings, hidden rituals, and an initiation process for members. A "brother" of the Lord might be a title reserved for those who had reached the highest level of understanding of the Christ, differentiating them from ordinary believers.

Within this community, one of their key leaders was James, referred to as "James the Just" (or James the Righteous) in early extra-canonical Christian sources (like Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius's Church History). These sources describe him as an ascetic who never cut his hair, drank no wine, and spent so much time praying in the Temple that his knees became calloused like a camel's. This rigorous lifestyle and commitment to poverty provided a compelling model of piety that attracted like-minded Jews seeking a purer form of religious observance.

James, as a "pillar" (Galatians 2:9), was the top earthly authority, and his unique title reflected that supreme status. James’s authority (see previous point on authority through revelation) was reinforced by a visionary experience (mentioned briefly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7) that validated his role as the movement’s head. His title, “the Lord’s brother,” has sparked centuries of debate. In Koine Greek, adelphos (“brother”) could mean biological sibling, close relative, or spiritual kin. Many scholars argue that Paul used it as an honorific title, marking James as the primary leader of the sect, not necessarily a blood relative of Jesus. This interpretation aligns with the movement’s hierarchical structure, where titles signified levels of esoteric knowledge and authority.

Simultaneously, there was a Hellenistic Jew named Paul who was proselytizing throughout the Roman Empire. Paul was also a visionary mystic whose faith centered on a savior figure named "Christ" or "Jesus.” ***(Conveniently, the name Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek name Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), which is itself a transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua (ישוע). This was a common name among Jews in the First Century. The name's etymological meaning is significant, as it summarizes the core theological message of the New Testament: "YHWH is salvation" or "The Lord saves".)***

Paul’s Christ was revealed to him through spiritual visions (again, see point on authority through revelation) and scriptural interpretation (e.g., from Isaiah or the Book of Wisdom). Paul’s "Gospel" does not discuss a historical ministry in Palestine, but about a pre-existent divine being who died in the heavens to redeem humanity.

Paul also claimed authority through his dramatic vision on the road to Damascus which helped to propel him into the early leadership. Paul’s version was revolutionary - salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law. For Paul, distinctions like “Jew nor Greek” were erased in Christ, creating a universal faith accessible to all. His theology centered on a cosmic savior, revealed through scripture and mystical experience. This message resonated with Gentiles across the Roman Empire, making Paul’s version of Christianity far more adaptable and expansive than James’s.

Another early leader, Peter (Cephas), was the movement’s spokesperson. His authority, like James’s and Paul’s, rested on mystical experiences interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ. Peter’s role was primarily as “apostle to the Jews,” but he also acted as a diplomat, navigating the growing rift between James’s law-observant faction and Paul’s radical, law-free mission. James insisted that “faith without works is dead,” emphasizing ethical action as the fruit of genuine belief. Paul countered that justification came “by faith, not by works,” defining works as ritual observances like circumcision. This resulted in the Incident at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from Gentile fellowship under pressure from James’s delegates. Later theologians harmonized these views, but it shows the diversity and conflict within the earliest Christian movement.

James’s martyrdom around 62 CE and the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE decapitated the mother church. The Jerusalem based Jewish-Christian center dissolved, and Paul’s Gentile-friendly, portable theology became dominant. Christianity’s survival and global spread owe more to Paul’s universal vision than to James’s original, historically Jewish rooted form.

As the movement expanded, the Gospel writers faced a challenge of how to give their heavenly savior an earthly biography. Thus, they crafted narratives rich in symbolism and prophecy, weaving Old Testament motifs with Greco-Roman literary tropes. Luke’s census story and Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem and Massacre of the Innocents are prime examples of dramatic plot devices with no historical basis, designed to fulfill messianic prophecies and elevate Jesus as a new Moses-like figure. It is clear that these narratives are later literary creations, not part of the original tradition centered on visions and eschatological urgency.

The historical bedrock of Christianity begins not with a Galilean preacher, but with a visionary sect led by James the Just in Jerusalem. Its strict Jewish ethos and apocalyptic fervor shaped the earliest community. Yet, it was Paul’s radical reinterpretation, a faith unbound by the Law, centered on a cosmic Christ, that ensured Christianity’s survival and growth. The Gospels, written generations later, retrofitted this mystical savior with an earthly life, creating the Jesus of history as we know him today, a figure born as much from literary imagination as from historical memory.

No, that description is not considered accurate by mainstream historians of early Christianity.
But: It does reflect a minority, mythicist-leaning interpretation (associated with writers like Burton Mack, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier). Most scholars-across secular, Jewish, Christian, and atheist backgrounds-reject the idea that Jesus began as a purely heavenly being invented later.

What Mainstream Scholars Agree On
(Think: Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Dale Allison, John Meier, Géza Vermes)

1. Jesus was a real apocalyptic Jewish preacher from Galilee.

There is overwhelming consensus-shared by religious and nonreligious historians-that:
-A historical Jesus existed
-He preached in Galilee
-He gathered tollowers
-He was executed by Pontius Pilate around 30 CE

This conclusion rests on multiple independent textual streams (Mark, Q material, Paul's references to Jesus' family, Josephus, etc.).

The claim that Christianity began only with a visionary sect and only later created an earthly Jesus is not accepted by specialists in the field.

2. The Infancy Narratives are theological, not historical.

This is partially correct.

Scholars overwhelmingly agree that:
1 Luke’s census as described did not historically occur.
-Matthew's Star of Bethlehem is not a historical astronomical event.

The Massacre of the Innocents is not supported by evidence outside Matthew
These narratives are understood as literary/ theological constructions designed to:
-Tie Jesus to Davidic lineage
-Fulfill scriptural motifs
-Present Jesus as a "new Moses" or new
Israel

So yes, this part aligns with mainstream scholarship.

But it does not imply the entire life of Jesus was invented.

3. Paul's theology is innovative.

Mainstream scholars agree that Paul:
-Emphasized faith in Christ over adherence to the full Mosaic Law
-Presented Jesus in cosmic, exalted terms
-Played a major role in spreading Christianity among Gentiles

But this is NOT understood as "Paul invented
Christianity."

Rather: he reinterpreted an already existing movement following a real, earthly Jesus.

—>What the Excerpt Claims That Is Not Accepted by Historians

1. "The earliest movement followed a heavenly savior with no earthly life."
This is mythicist theory, not mainstream scholarship.
Paul:

-Mentions Jesus' birth ("born of a woman,"Gal 4:4)
-Mentions his Jewish identity
-Mentions brothers (James, "the brother of the Lord," Gal 1:19)
-Refers to his earthly teachings
- Refers to the Last Supper tradition
-Refers to his crucifixion under earthly powers


2. "The Gospels retrofitted a fictional biography onto a cosmic Christ."

Scholars see it differently:
-The Gospels shape memory through theology and storytelling
-But they do not invent Jesus wholesale
-They reflect real traditions, expanded and interpreted
-Think: not biography vs. fiction, but memory shaped by theology, like ancient biographies of other figures.

3. "The historical bedrock is James the Just's visionary sect."

James was an important early leader.

But there's no evidence he founded a religion around visions of a heavenly Christ.

Instead:
—>James leads the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death
——>He sees himself preserving Jesus' teachings within a Jewish framework
———>Paul's letters indicate continuity with Jesus' earthly ministry, not invention of a mythic Christ

What Historians Do Think the Gospels Are

The best model is:
1. Jesus existed as a real preacher.
2. Early followers experienced visions of him after his death
(very similar to how ancient Jewish apocalyptic groups understood martyrdom and vindication).
3. Traditions about him circulated orally for decades.
4. The Gospel writers shaped those traditions into theological narratives, adding symbolic material (infancy stories, miracle patterns, scriptural fulfillment).

This view explains:
A. Both the mythic/symbolic layers
B. And the historical core beneath them
without requiring Jesus to be invented wholesale.

Who cares "What Mainstream Scholars Agree On"? All the verbiage in the world is not going to make Jesus God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

Following on, to avoid further distractions to Jesus topic is there a link you can give that explains Atheism for Dummies? TIA.

Atheists don't believe in god(s). The end.

+1. And it's important for people to remember that there is a VERY big difference between not believing in a god and saying that an atheist KNOWS or even believes there IS NO GOD. We don't claim to know there is no god. We just don't believe in one. A PP said there is no difference between saying there is a god and an atheist saying there is no god. There is a very big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

Following on, to avoid further distractions to Jesus topic is there a link you can give that explains Atheism for Dummies? TIA.

Atheists don't believe in god(s). The end.

+1. And it's important for people to remember that there is a VERY big difference between not believing in a god and saying that an atheist KNOWS or even believes there IS NO GOD. We don't claim to know there is no god. We just don't believe in one. A PP said there is no difference between saying there is a god and an atheist saying there is no god. There is a very big difference.

Atheists don't really know that there is no GOd, just as religious people don't really know that there IS a god. I, however, an atheist - will often say that there is no God. I don't believe in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

Following on, to avoid further distractions to Jesus topic is there a link you can give that explains Atheism for Dummies? TIA.

Atheists don't believe in god(s). The end.

+1. And it's important for people to remember that there is a VERY big difference between not believing in a god and saying that an atheist KNOWS or even believes there IS NO GOD. We don't claim to know there is no god. We just don't believe in one. A PP said there is no difference between saying there is a god and an atheist saying there is no god. There is a very big difference.

Atheists don't really know that there is no GOd, just as religious people don't really know that there IS a god. I, however, an atheist - will often say that there is no God. I don't believe in God.

Believers don't all support organized religion in the form of churches, denominations, crazy TV charlatans, cults, whatever. I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

Following on, to avoid further distractions to Jesus topic is there a link you can give that explains Atheism for Dummies? TIA.

Atheists don't believe in god(s). The end.

+1. And it's important for people to remember that there is a VERY big difference between not believing in a god and saying that an atheist KNOWS or even believes there IS NO GOD. We don't claim to know there is no god. We just don't believe in one. A PP said there is no difference between saying there is a god and an atheist saying there is no god. There is a very big difference.

Atheists don't really know that there is no GOd, just as religious people don't really know that there IS a god. I, however, an atheist - will often say that there is no God. I don't believe in God.

Believers don't all support organized religion in the form of churches, denominations, crazy TV charlatans, cults, whatever. I don't.

There are believers, then there are much weirder believers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

Following on, to avoid further distractions to Jesus topic is there a link you can give that explains Atheism for Dummies? TIA.

Atheists don't believe in god(s). The end.

+1. And it's important for people to remember that there is a VERY big difference between not believing in a god and saying that an atheist KNOWS or even believes there IS NO GOD. We don't claim to know there is no god. We just don't believe in one. A PP said there is no difference between saying there is a god and an atheist saying there is no god. There is a very big difference.

Atheists don't really know that there is no GOd, just as religious people don't really know that there IS a god. I, however, an atheist - will often say that there is no God. I don't believe in God.

Believers don't all support organized religion in the form of churches, denominations, crazy TV charlatans, cults, whatever. I don't.

Good for you! I bet you think that you're going to live forever in heaven, though, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is atheism a fact and believing in God not a fact? Both are just opinions.
Is there proof there is no God? Tangible proof? Archaeological proof?

Also yapping about "angels"' is a red herring. Not all believers in God or the Christ take the Bible literally as fundamentalists. Not all are evangelicals. Not all are snake handlers either.

My point is atheists posting seem to overgeneralize and treat believers as homogeneous. And mock us all because some of us believe certain things.

One question I have is how do atheists cope with fear and uncertainty? I take comfort in affirmjng Divine Order in my life: wholeness, harmony, wisdom, abundance and peace. What if anything does an atheist do?

This is exactly the reason why I think some people are believers - they are generally fearful and are uncomfortable with uncertainty. So they blindly accept fantastical stories that makes them feel better.

Are any atheists fearful? What do they do?

Or does the Atheist Handbook say fear comes from believing in God and without that, no need to be afraid?

Following on, to avoid further distractions to Jesus topic is there a link you can give that explains Atheism for Dummies? TIA.

Atheists don't believe in god(s). The end.

+1. And it's important for people to remember that there is a VERY big difference between not believing in a god and saying that an atheist KNOWS or even believes there IS NO GOD. We don't claim to know there is no god. We just don't believe in one. A PP said there is no difference between saying there is a god and an atheist saying there is no god. There is a very big difference.

Atheists don't really know that there is no GOd, just as religious people don't really know that there IS a god. I, however, an atheist - will often say that there is no God. I don't believe in God.

Believers don't all support organized religion in the form of churches, denominations, crazy TV charlatans, cults, whatever. I don't.

If you dont support or follow an organized religion, then you are making up your own beliefs not based on anything.

This is how religions form. Making up your own ideas and getting others to believe it.