By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Kenny]

And you are welcome to entertain whatever interpretation of Jesus you wish as well, IMV.

Agreed

In your opinion, of course. Perhaps you shouldn't state your personal Christian beliefs as if they are definitive facts.

No one has proved it wrong.

If Jesus even existed, then I believe he was not as his devout followers depicted him to be.

Yes… some people believe that

Re-stating what I wrote in the post I linked earlier:

Based on the information I've read, if a religious leader named Yehoshua (also called Yeshua or Jesus) existed in biblical times, he was most likely just an ordinary man and popular religious teacher whose devoted followers embellished the stories about him, and more embellishment and folklore were later added to these stories to make him appear to be more than he actually was. I believe that it's probable that he was simply a well-liked religious teacher whose loyal followers spread false stories about him to make him appear godlike.

Except he rose from the dead with hundreds of witnesses. Soldiers were at his tomb to prevent someone taking the body and all they had to do was produce the body to squelch the narrative. They couldn’t because he rose from the dead.

I also think that it's likely that a few stories about him were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions, which predate Christianity and the Bible. In my opinion, it's plagiarized pagan myths.

Yes… people have suggested that. My position is that the messiah was declared from the beginning and simply people morphed it like they did with Daniel Boone.

However, there is still a real Daniel Boone and there is a real TaNaKh and a real Jesus (as you mentioned)

I'm sure it seems quite obvious in your opinion, but it is just your opinion.

True… true… but someone has to be right (either me or you)

 

[Polymath257]

No. it does not mean that there is nothing. It means there is no consciousness of whoever is not alive. Someone who is not conscious cannot do anything.

Nobody need to be conscious for something to happen, though. Many things happen in this universe with no conscious agency involved.

 

[Polymath257]

So you say. I think its just another story like the Iliad and they just happen to use real places


I disagree.

OK, you disagree. WHY do you disagree? Do you have any actual evidence of, say, the Exodus actually occurring?

 

[Polymath257]

Except he rose from the dead with hundreds of witnesses.

No, a claim is made that there were hundreds of witnesses. But it was made far away from where the event occurred and where nobody there would be able to contradict the claim.

Soldiers were at his tomb to prevent someone taking the body and all they had to do was produce the body to squelch the narrative. They couldn’t because he rose from the dead.

Once again, that is the claim. But it makes no sense from the perspective of the Romans.

Yes… people have suggested that. My position is that the messiah was declared from the beginning and simply people morphed it like they did with Daniel Boone.

However, there is still a real Daniel Boone and there is a real TaNaKh and a real Jesus (as you mentioned)

I think it likely that there was a real man underlying the myths. But the story got out of control, partly due to Paul's intervention.

True… true… but someone has to be right (either me or you)

Not true. Everyone could be wrong.

 

[Kenny]

OK, you disagree. WHY do you disagree? Do you have any actual evidence of, say, the Exodus actually occurring?

Archaeology is painstakingly slow as history as proven… (at one time they said King David never existed). But the Jewish nation has been there and there is enough evidence that hasn’t been lost because of wars, time, natural disasters and deterioration that supports the narrative which is true.

 

[Polymath257]

Archaeology is painstakingly slow as history as proven… (at one time they said King David never existed). But the Jewish nation has been there and there is enough evidence that hasn’t been lost because of wars, time, natural disasters and deterioration that supports the narrative which is true.

So you believe in spite of the lack of evidence? You believe even though there *should* be plenty of evidence for an Exodus if it actually happened? You believe even thought he evidence is that the ancient Israelites were native to Canaan?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, a claim is made that there were hundreds of witnesses. But it was made far away from where the event occurred and where nobody there would be able to contradict the claim.

Once again, that is the claim. But it makes no sense from the perspective of the Romans.

I think it likely that there was a real man underlying the myths. But the story got out of control, partly due to Paul's intervention.

Not true. Everyone could be wrong.

You answered first, and I think you did so perfectly. I don't have anything else to contribute to your response to Kenny at this time.

 

[Kenny]

No, a claim is made that there were hundreds of witnesses. But it was made far away from where the event occurred and where nobody there would be able to contradict the claim.

Yes, the claim was made by and recorded for posterity. Now, one doesn’t have to accept the historical account but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen

Once again, that is the claim. But it makes no sense from the perspective of the Romans.

That’s a great statement but it is just a statement

I think it likely that there was a real man underlying the myths. But the story got out of control, partly due to Paul's intervention.

Yes.. .there are people that believe that. However, Paul emphasis was the Gentiles. The story began in Jerusalem without Paul who was, at that time, a persecutor and not a supporter. So it actually supports my position.

Not true. Everyone could be wrong.

LOL… True that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The verse Matthew 1:23 refers to verse Isaiah 7:14. But the latter verse is clearly NOT about Jesus since the young woman (not a virgin) is supposed to give birth and the son is supposed to still be young (before he knows to refuse evil and choose the good) when the two kings threatening Ahaz are gone (the land they occupy will be deserted).

So, the 'prophesy' referred to in Matthew has NOTHING to do with Jesus at all.

Now, if you think this was the wrong verse, which verse do YOU think Mt 1:23 is referring to?

And no one ever called Jesus "Manny".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one has proved it wrong.

That is an admission that it is not a fact. If one claims that something is a fact the burden of proof is upon that person. It is not upon those that disagree with him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the claim was made by and recorded for posterity. Now, one doesn’t have to accept the historical account but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen

You miss the point. Christians try to use the "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." verse as evidence for Jesus and it is not. It is a claim, and what seems to be a very very weak one. There is o record of this anywhere else. This would be a rather big thing. Also how could a person check this out? In those days most people did not leave an area 30 miles from where they were born. No one was going to take a trip of a thousand miles to confirm this.

It is simply the Canadian girl friend argument and it is far weaker.

That’s a great statement but it is just a statement


Yes.. .there are people that believe that. However, Paul emphasis was the Gentiles. The story began in Jerusalem without Paul who was, at that time, a persecutor and not a supporter. So it actually supports my position.

No, a worthless unconfirmable claim only feeds confirmation bias. It is not evidence.

LOL… True that!

So how do you properly test the crucifixion claims?

 

[Kenny]

That is an admission that it is not a fact. If one claims that something is a fact the burden of proof is upon that person. It is not upon those that disagree with him.

They claim it is a myth so the burden of proof is on them to prove m wrong. (As you suggested) I have simply said, they haven’t proved me wrong… maybe I should have said, “They haven’t proved it being wrong?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

They claim it is a myth so the burden of proof is on them to prove m wrong. (As you suggested) I have simply said, they haven’t proved me wrong… maybe I should have said, “They haven’t proved it being wrong?"

That can be shown to be the case quite easily. It has all of the elements of a myth. Parts of it are directly contradicted by history. I think that you are just ignoring the evidence that shows that a good part of the Jesus story is mythical.

By the way, one should not conflate the fact that large parts of the Jesus story appear to be mythical with one saying that Jesus never existed. A lot of the Bible stories are similar to Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Lincoln was real. His vampire hunting was not.

 

[Kenny]

You miss the point. Christians try to use the "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." verse as evidence for Jesus and it is not.

You haven’t proven that position

It is a claim, and what seems to be a very very weak one. There is o record of this anywhere else. This would be a rather big thing. Also how could a person check this out? In those days most people did not leave an area 30 miles from where they were born. No one was going to take a trip of a thousand miles to confirm this.

I’m not sure where you get your data from and how you connected the dots. First, on the High Sabbath, a pilgrimage was taken by Israel to Jerusalem and it was much more than 30 miles.

Not sure where you get “thousands of miles” from.

I don’t even know where “very weak” can be used other than one doesn’t believe and therefore labels it.

It is simply the Canadian girl friend argument and it is far weaker.

I’m sorry, do you have a Canadian girlfriend?

No, a worthless unconfirmable claim only feeds confirmation bias. It is not evidence.

I disagree

So how do you properly test the crucifixion claims?

I’m sorry… how does this apply?

How do you test the claim that George Washington died with congestion and that the doctors gave him a concoction of molasses butter and vinegar?

Of course, if one just doesn’t want to believe any report or any testimony then why even have a murder case in court?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody need to be conscious for something to happen, though. Many things happen in this universe with no conscious agency involved.

I'm pretty sure you do not agree with me, but the universe could not come from nothing, because guess who I think is consciously existing without beginning or end. Guess...(not Adam)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven’t proven that position.

That is a fail. You could ask for the logic of that if you did not understand the obvious, but that not a position that one "proves".

I’m not sure where you get your data from and how you connected the dots. First, on the High Sabbath, a pilgrimage was taken by Israel to Jerusalem and it was much more than 30 miles.

Where do you get yours from? Do you think that the whole country made that trip? In fact after a quick Google search I did not find anything that indicated that people would go to Jerusalem. Maybe I was searching with the wrong terms.

Not sure where you get “thousands of miles” from.

I thought that you were familiar with that verse. It was written to the people of Corinth. That is about only 40 miles from Athens Greece. To get to Jerusalem. one would have to fly 780 miles. But flying was not an option back then. By land it is 1810 miles. A sea journey would be somewhere in between the two. That trip was out of the question for those that received it and even if you asked people negatives would not rule it out since one could easily be asking the wrong people.

It is one of the weakest arguments in the Bible. It is the same as saying:

I do have a girlfriend. She lives in Canada. She is really hot.

Though the nerd having the not girlfriend is many times more likely.

I don’t even know where “very weak” can be used other than one doesn’t believe and therefore labels it.

That is because you are not using critical thinking skills.

I’m sorry, do you have a Canadian girlfriend?

No, that is an example of how that argument fails.

I disagree

That is because like most believers you do not understand the concept of evidence.

I’m sorry… how does this apply?

How do you test the claim that George Washington died with congestion and that the doctors gave him a concoction of molasses butter and vinegar?

Of course, if one just doesn’t want to believe any report or any testimony then why even have a murder case in court?

I am not debating about how Washington died. You need to work on your understanding of the burden of proof as well. If a friend of mine was sick and he said the he ate chicken noodle soup and got better I would believe that he was sick and that he got better. I would not jump to cause and effect on that alone. But if you want to claim that 500 people saw a magically risen Jesus you need a lot more evidence for that. So let's change it up a bit.

My friend told me that he was sick but then a dragon working for Doordash showed up with some chicken noodle soup for him and he got better I would need just a little bit more evidence than that.

Paul simply is not a reliable source when he makes that claim. Remember, he did not believe at that time so he could not have seen Jesus. He was not even hunting down Christians at that time so you have no way at all of knowing where he even got that information from. And when no one else has it it begins to look more than a little as if it were mage up out of whole cloth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pretty sure you do not agree with me, but the universe could not come from nothing, because guess who I think is consciously existing without beginning or end. Guess...(not Adam)

Define "nothing'. Do you even know what the total energy of the universe is? If we took all of the energy from matter (remember E = mc^2), from dark matter, from dark energy. etc. and added them altogether do you have any idea of the value one would get?

 

[Kenny]

That is a fail. You could ask for the logic of that if you did not understand the obvious, but that not a position that one "proves".

Opinion.

Where do you get yours from? Do you think that the whole country made that trip? In fact after a quick Google search I did not find anything that indicated that people would go to Jerusalem. Maybe I was searching with the wrong terms.

Ask our Jewish friends on the forum or get some historical data.

I thought that you were familiar with that verse. It was written to the people of Corinth. That is about only 40 miles from Athens Greece. To get to Jerusalem. one would have to fly 780 miles. But flying was not an option back then. By land it is 1810 miles. A sea journey would be somewhere in between the two. That trip was out of the question for those that received it and even if you asked people negatives would not rule it out since one could easily be asking the wrong people.

Ohhhh… you are talking about that! I thought you were talking about Jesus. Yes, they did travel! They did have boats!

It is one of the weakest arguments in the Bible.

Opinion

It is the same as saying:

I do have a girlfriend. She lives in Canada. She is really hot.

Congrats!

No, that is an example of how that argument fails.

opinion

That is because like most believers you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Unsupported statement

I am not debating about how Washington died.

I used it as an example.

If a friend of mine was sick and he said the he ate chicken noodle soup and got better I would believe that he was sick and that he got better. I would not jump to cause and effect on that alone. But if you want to claim that 500 people saw a magically risen Jesus you need a lot more evidence for that. So let's change it up a bit.

There is a difference between “magical” and “historical”.

Paul simply is not a reliable source when he makes that claim.

Opinion

Remember, he did not believe at that time so he could not have seen Jesus.

Not according to his record. Remember, Jesus was raised from the dead.

He was not even hunting down Christians at that time so you have no way at all of knowing where he even got that information from. And when no one else has it it begins to look more than a little as if it were mage up out of whole cloth.

???

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

By the way, one should not conflate the fact that large parts of the Jesus story appear to be mythical with one saying that Jesus never existed. A lot of the Bible stories are similar to Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Lincoln was real. His vampire hunting was not.

I just wanted to say that I think you presented a good analogy with Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Opinion.

Nope. Logic. But you appear to lack that at times too.

Ask our Jewish friends on the forum or get some historical data.

And you shift the burden of proof again. No, it is your claim, you need to support it. I did look and could not find any support. Unsupported positive assertions can be treated as if they are false.

Ohhhh… you are talking about that! I thought you were talking about Jesus. Yes, they did travel! They did have boats!

No, the subject is Paul's Canadian girlfriend claim. That there were 500 witnesses to the risen And no, it is improper to say "they did travel". Very few people traveled in those days. Yes, some did. Government officials would travel in the empire. Soldiers might travel to war. And traders would travel from port to port. But that was about it. When you know that your crowd is not going to travel it is easy to lie and say "Oh, 500 people saw him, yeah. That's the ticket!"

Opinion

No, fact once again. This is an observation. You cannot show that he is reliable. That means that he is not. Once again you try to shift the burden of proof.

Congrats!

Oh my! Epic fail.

opinion

No, once again logic. Instead of posting falsehoods about "opinion" where you are effectively admitting that you are wrong you should ask questions when you do not understand something.

Unsupported statement

No, your own posts condemn you. You are my support.

I used it as an example.

I know. But it demonstrated that you do not understand the burden of proof.

There is a difference between “magical” and “historical”.

Yes, exactly. So you do understand how you failed. You are trying to treat magical events as if they were historical.

Opinion

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again. My observation is correct because you cannot properly support Paul. Once again, you really should be working on those logic skills.

Not according to his record. Remember, Jesus was raised from the dead.

No, the myth is that Jesus was raised from the dead. And you seem to have forgotten your own mythology. Jesus ascended to heave long before Paul began his anti Christian crusade. According to the mythos Paul only saw "visions of Jesus" aka hallucinations. He never saw Jesus himself he was long gone according to the stories.

???

Do you not even know the Paul stories? Wow!