Alincolnism may be the latest trendy defense going around the apologist community these days. They say we can't prove God? Then let them prove Lincoln! Whether alincolnism is a thing or not, I don't know, but this particular hair-brained advocate wouldn't let it go.
I'm not even going to pretend that this is the best defense but it's the snarky one I came up with.
Historians have standards for establishing historicity. Lincoln meets those standards; Jesus doesn't. The End.
This does not mean of course that a particular person named Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist, however embellished the accounts of his life may have been -- or that he didn't found Christianity. It simply means there's no convincing evidence that he did. (Yes, I'm a mythicist, not a traditionalist in this regard). There's also a fair bit of evidence that he did NOT ... always assuming of course that a person is willing to entertain it to begin with.
In any event atheism has nothing to do with whether Jesus is a historical figure or not, it has to do with whether supernatural beings and realms are falsifiable, enabling one to make knowledge claims about them, which creates the potential for affording belief to them. It is a total deflection.
Hadn't until just now. think this might come out of my mouth. "i don't give a fuck if lincoln existed. let him smite me dead for it."
@Deiter let them smite me dead then. all three, the lord, lincoln, and alincolnismist. still giving the middle finger as i pass. i read your exchange. i read the alincolnism explanation (three different sites.) both hurt my head. it is the deity they are worried about, not me. if this is applied in conversation with me, my response will be some version of my original response.
Reminds me of when George Carlin said, "If god exists, then may he strike this audience dead. See? Nothing happened."
Yeah. I'm a literature guy and I know Beowulf wasn't real. That doesn't mean that there isn't evidence for a King Hrothgar who is mentioned in the tale. I.E. Jesus and Herod.