Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Sapiens]

Anyone who thinks science can disprove the existence of God has a mental disorder.

I do not recall anyone claiming that it was possible to disprove god, santa, the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster, rather, the point is that they are all about equally unlikely.

 

[Agondonter]

I do not recall anyone claiming that it was possible to disprove god, santa, the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster, rather, the point is that they are all about equally unlikely.

LOL!!! Well, if I believed God was anything at all like any of those things, I wouldn't believe in God either. What you're suggesting is that the only idea of God worth your consideration is childish.and anthropomorphic. You must already have a childish preconceived idea of what God is like before you can make that argument. Too bad it's not God.

 

[Sapiens]

Right now I am reading a book by Bart Ehrman, one of the leading New Testament scholars of our time. By the way, Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. The book is called "Did Jesus exist?". In this book he explains that people who hold views such as yours (i.e., that Jesus did not exist) are called mythicists. All mythicists are easily refuted by the academic community and the vast majority of them are laughed at by the academic community. The reason for this is that it is easy for an academic that actually has training in the New Testament field to trace the written and oral traditions of the Gospels back into right after the crucifixion. Ehrman explains that both of Josephus's passages about Jesus are actually accepted as genuine by the vast majority of scholars, although the lengthier passage (i.e. the Testimonium Flavianum) is considered to contain later modifications by Christian scribes. Modifications that, nonetheless, do not disqualify the passage as a valid historical reference for Jesus' existence.

No, I am not a mythecist, I am a skeptic. That's all. I am very familiar with Ehrman's work. But again, that is not the focus of our discussion here.

You made a claim.

I called you on it.

You failed.

That's all, no more, no less. Ehrman can't save you and Josephus is not contemporaneous.

Bart Ehrman also goes on to explain that the Gospels are historical sources. Mythicist normally do not consider them to be reliable historical sources, which is an irrational and unscientific stance from their part. The Gospels are actually historical material of prime quality, since when it comes to providing a historical background for the events they are narrating, the authors of the Gospels are scrupulous in citing names and dates that have proven over and over again to be correct. Furthermore, mythicist cannot call into question the historical reliability of the Gospels just because the Gospels narrate miracles, since virtually all of the great historians of Jesus' times, Tacitus and Herodotus included, narrate miracles in their historical accounts. That the Gospels are biased in favor of Jesus? All of the historical documents that we have are biased in one way or another. For instance, you cannot dismissed the early accounts of the American War of Independence just because they were written by Americans.

Even if I grant you the Gospels as legitimate and reliable historical sources, you still have no contemporaneous sources. Same goes for Tacitus and Herodotus and the American War of Independence has nothing to do with the question of the evidence you claim to have and fail to produce.

So, tracing back the written and oral traditions of the Gospels right into Jesus times is something that scholars do by considering the sources for the Gospels and epistles. All of these sources constitute independent attestations for Jesus' life and death. There are several independent attestations that include the Gospel of Mark (70 AD), the Gospel of Matthew (80-85 AD), the Gospel of Luke (80-85 AD), the Gospel of John (90-95 AD), the written and/or oral tradition included into the Gospel of Thomas (perhaps 50 AD), the "Q" source used by Matthew and Luke (written material that probably dated to 50 AD), the Gospel of Peter, the "M" source used by Matthew, and the "L" source used by Luke (probably written material). So, you have several independent attestations for Jesus' existence that are derived from a careful and systematic evaluation of the written material.

Also,scholars are certain that these written and oral traditions date back to Jesus' life because, among other things, the Gospels contain traces of the original Aramaic(Jesus' native language). For instance, phrases like "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41) or "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani" (Mark 15:34). Also, some passages that do not make perfect sense in Greek, do make perfect sense when translated back into Aramaic. For example, "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2: 27-28). In Greek the "therefore" does not make sense, since the Sabbath being made for man does not have any connection with the Son of Man being Lord of the Sabbath. However, in Aramaic the word for "man" and "son of man" is one and the same: "barnash". So, the original Aramaic was "Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for Sabbath. Therefore, barnash is Lord of the Sabbath".

That is Ehrman's argument, it is not evidence, it is rather weak inference based on assumption, and it is clearly not contemporaneous.

There is much more than this. I'll post it later. You need to understand that your stance on this topic is not only unwarranted, but actually preposterous. You have no evidence whatsoever to claim the non-existence of Jesus. Your position is based simply on the irrational denial of the numerous independent attestations of Jesus' existence.

Once again, you have failed to produce any contemporaneous evidence, just a passel of hand-waving and insult. I have not even come out and stated that there Jesus is not a historical figure, I have only maintained that you have no evidence otherwise. If you do ... present it, if you don't ... stop with the red herrings and insults, admit your failure and we'll move on.

 

[Agondonter]

Tell me Sapiens, real or imagined, what do Santa, the tooth fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all have in common?

 

[Crypto2015]

I am interested in seeing you meet the commitment that you made to provide contemporaneous cross-references for the historicity of Jesus. Sorry, the video does not do so. Besides, I really don't think that teaching a course in Miracles (APOL 920: Miracles) at Liberty University gets you into the "academic community."

Rationalwiki exposes Habermas for what he is:

Habermas's work does not resemble the work of historians. Rather, he is stating that the events in the gospels are basically self-evidently true, which is just as fallacious as stating the events leading up to Mohammad's ascension are true by citing Islamic scripture. He provides no external verification. Here is a walk through of Habermas's "facts" to show that the are not historical facts or are unknowns.

1. As far as we know, Jesus (if he existed) is told to have been crucified only in the gospels, about 45 to 70 years after Jesus died. No contemporary eye-witness reports this execution, nor does Paul ever mention the crucifixion. The claim that Jesus was crucified is unhistorical in of itself. Torah Law states any blasphemer should be put to death and then hung for display. This law is confirmed and elaborated in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin: people could be executed either by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation, but whichever it was, when the crime was blasphemy the corpse was then hung on a pole for display, apparently like a slab of meat, which resembled a crucifixion. And whether executed or not, a body had to be taken down by sunset. Nowhere in the law does it state that the punishment was by crucifixion.
2. Again, this is only mentioned in the gospels way after Jesus supposedly died. If Jesus did exist and was executed as a blasphemer, the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin goes on to explain the law regarding the burial of condemned men: they did not bury the condemned in the burial grounds of his ancestors, but there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned.(6.5e-f) This is confirmed in three other sources: the Talmud, the Tosefta, and the Midrash Rabbah. Jesus, as a blasphemer, would be ear-marked for stoning and thus for the Graveyard of the Stoned and Burned. The Mishnah itself goes on to explain that only "when the flesh was completely decomposed were the bones gathered and buried in their proper place," i.e. only then could the family rebury the condemned man in their ancestral tomb. There were no apparent exceptions made for execution by a Gentile government (Talmud, Sanhedrin 47b).
3. We have no records of the disciples' emotions or personal feelings. The gospel authors were not contemporary witnesses, Relying on the gospel authors is not a satisfactory answer.
4. As discussed in point 2 above, Jesus was not buried in a tomb. As a blasphemer, to be properly buried by Jewish law, Jesus would have to wait to become bones before buried in a tomb (and that take a lot longer than 3 days).
5. Such experiences, if they happened, can be explained without miracles.
6. That is assuming they were never doubters, or they merely claim they were never doubters. All we have is the word of some anonymous authors. Perhaps only half the disciples were believers, and the gospel authors reported that they were all believes to give credulity to the resurrection story. Without individual or contemporary testimony, we cannot be sure that they all became believers.
7. Rather, the atonement was the more appropriate central message. Resurrection means nothing without the atonement.
8. Jerusalem was the center of education and religious diversion. Followers of various beliefs all testify as to their experiences and faith, such as Apollonius of Tyana raising the dead.
9. This can be achieved without a historical figure, such as with cargo cults. The sudden rise of the Mormon Church does not prove that God lives on a planet or an angel visited Joseph Smith. Also, Habermas would likely reject a Muslim using this argument in favor of the validity of Islam.
10. Setting a date of worship does not require an historical figure to exist. You might as well point to the Muslim choice of Friday as their day of worship as some sort argument for the validity of Islam.
11. Again, this is assuming James existed, was a doubter and did not lie. Habermas's only reason for assuming this is biblical inerrancy.
12. Paul himself is emphatic about never having witnessed Jesus or his resurrection, and claims to have changed his views on the road to Damascus after having a vision. Also, compare Paul's claims of skepticism and dis-/unbelief with those made by Lee Strobel...

The Oz analogy
Using the same logic and type of "evidence" employed by Gary Habermas for the historicity of Jesus, we can make a solid case for the historicity of the Wizard of Oz (by assuming the inerrancy of The Wizard of Oz, of course):

Fact 1: Independent Testimony: The oldest account comes from Frank with subsequent expansion and collaborative evidence supplied by Noel, Florence, Edgar, and John. For instance, Frank simply describes the twister hitting the Mid-West, but from the other four we can deduce that it specifically hit Kansas. We can verify that tornadoes hit Kansas and have done so for many centuries. This knowledge of local geography and climate further supports that all five authors were eye witnesses intimately familiar with the course of events.

Fact 2: The Wicked Witch of the East Actually Died: This has been confirmed by five chiropractors, who all agree that a house falling from the sky at great heights could kill her. The fifth chiropractor, unlike the previous four, did not state unequivocally that the Wicked Witch would necessarily die, but is sure that the most likely scenario would result in her death.

Fact 3: The Radical Change in the Munchkin Behavior: The Munchkins were terrified on the Wicked Witch of the East. However, after the house fell on the Wicked Witch, the Munchkins were happy, singing and proclaiming that she did in fact die. They would not do any of this unless the Wicked Witch of the East had actually died, otherwise she would hurt them. No other scenario can plausibly explain a paradigm shift of this magnitude.

Fact 4: The Ruby Slippers: Dorothy possessed the Ruby Slippers, which would be impossible unless the Wicked Witch of the East was actually dead. Dorothy having the Ruby Slippers has been independently verified by both the Witch of the North and the Wicked Witch of the West. These two are constantly at odds with each other, and thus they would not agree on Dorothy having the Slippers if it wasn't true.

Fact 5: The Yellow Brick Road: If the Yellow Brick Road did not exist, there would be no way for Dorothy to get to the Emerald City from Munchkin Land. Since we know that she did make it to the Emerald City, the Yellow Brick Road must logically (have) exist(ed). Furthermore, the existence of the Yellow Brick Road has been verified through the independent eye witness testimonies of the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Lion who also traveled it.

Bonus: The Munchkin Land Factor: If the Wicked Witch of the East was not dead, the flying monkeys could easily have verified that by coming in to investigate it at any time. Since they didn't and believed she was in fact dead, there is no reason to believe that they would have lied or been mistaken about it.

Footnote concerning the Ruby Slippers: There are four popular versions of The Wizard of Oz. In the oldest version, Dorothy has "silver shoes" and in the other three she has "ruby slippers". Note that some fundamentalists who rely solely onFrank's text will insist that the Ruby Slippers were actually Silver Shoes. Since slippers are a type of shoe, this is not actually a contradiction. The (supposed!) difference can easily be explained by the shoes being made of rubies and having silver buckles. The four versions of the Wizard of Oz certainly compliment each other, but they do not contradict each other. Frank simply neglected to mention the ruby bits and Noel/Florence/Edgar/John omitted the silver bits.

A similar analysis can be performed for Homer, and any number of other writers of historical novels.

The New Testament academic community considers the Gospels to be historical sources because they are ancient biographies. That is the genre to which they belong. "The Wizard of Oz" is a novel. That is a whole different genre. Moreover, even if "The wizard of Oz" had claimed to be a historical account of real events, we would have a single independent attestation of those events, provided by the author of the novel. On the contrary, in the case of Jesus' ministry, we have more than half a dozen independent attestations. Furthermore, has someone died by crucifixion because he didn't want to deny that he had seen the Wizard of Oz? Has someone been beheaded because he didn't want to deny that he walked and talked with the wizard of Oz? We know for sure that James, the brother of the Lord, died as a martyr for refusing to deny that he had been a witness to Jesus resurrection. The same can be said of the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter. Also, did a religious movement based on the worship of the wizard of Oz appear in Kansas immediately after the events recorded in the novel?

Habermas has been an expositor in Cambridge, not to mention other prominent universities. Do you think that a charlatan would be invited to Cambridge as a plenary speaker?

 

[Crypto2015]

No, I am not a mythecist, I am a skeptic. That's all. I am very familiar with Ehrman's work. But again, that is not the focus of our discussion here.

You made a claim.

I called you on it.

You failed.

That's all, no more, no less. Ehrman can't save you and Josephus is not contemporaneous.
Even if I grant you the Gospels as legitimate and reliable historical sources, you still have no contemporaneous sources. Same goes for Tacitus and Herodotus and the American War of Independence has nothing to do with the question of the evidence you claim to have and fail to produce.
That is Ehrman's argument, it is not evidence, it is rather weak inference based on assumption, and it is clearly not contemporaneous.
Once again, you have failed to produce any contemporaneous evidence, just a passel of hand-waving and insult. I have not even come out and stated that there Jesus is not a historical figure, I have only maintained that you have no evidence otherwise. If you do ... present it, if you don't ... stop with the red herrings and insults, admit your failure and we'll move on.

I am citing Ehrman's book because in that book he proves without a shadow of a doubt that people like you are utterly wrong. He explains that the biblical Jesus is considered a historical person by the overwhelming majority of the historians that work in the New Testament field, whether they are Christian or not. He also explains why this is so. Also, he explains that denying the historicity of Jesus is a rather new phenomenon that appeared only in the 18th century. The proponents of this thesis were, in the vast majority of cases, charlatans that didn't even deserve to have their books reviewed by a genuine scholar. Those who weren't charlatans were easily refuted by the academic community. In their writings, Christian apologists such as Justin and Origen (second and third century AD) replied to a lot of accusations against Christ, but they never had to face anyone accusing Jesus of not being a historical figure. The ancient writings of the first opponents of Christianity, such as the writings of the Jew Trypho or the philosopher Celsus do not include doubts about the actual existence of Jesus. So, you are the one who believe in a myth: the myth of the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

PS: I am sorry if I insulted you. It wasn't my intention.

 

[viole]

has someone died by crucifixion because he didn't want to deny that he had seen the Wizard of Oz? Has someone been beheaded because he didn't want to deny that he walked and talked with the wizard of Oz? We know for sure that James, the brother of the Lord, died as a martyr for refusing to deny that he had been a witness to Jesus resurrection. The same can be said of the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter.

I know people who committed mass suicide, together with their families, so that their souls could hitch hike a ride on a starship hiding behind a comet.

I mean, who would do that if there wasn't indeed an alien souls collecting starship hiding behind a comet?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

I am citing Ehrman's book because in that book he proves without a shadow of a doubt that people like you are utterly wrong. He explains that the biblical Jesus is considered a historical person by the overwhelming majority of the historians that work in the New Testament field, whether they are Christian or not. He also explains why this is so. Also, he explains that denying the historicity of Jesus is a rather new phenomenon that appeared only in the 18th century. The proponents of this thesis were, in the vast majority of cases, charlatans that didn't even deserve to have their books reviewed by a genuine scholar. Those who weren't charlatans were easily refuted by the academic community. In their writings, Christian apologists such as Justin and Origen (second and third century AD) replied to a lot of accusations against Christ, but they never had to face anyone accusing Jesus of not being a historical figure. The ancient writings of the first opponents of Christianity, such as the writings of the Jew Trypho or the philosopher Celsus do not include doubts about the actual existence of Jesus. So, you are the one who believe in a myth: the myth of the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

PS: I am sorry if I insulted you. It wasn't my intention.

Again, you made a claim of possessing evidence that you are unable to produce.

Where is the evidence?

You have none.

Yet you persist in your claim and now attempt, by slight of hand, to walk away from your claim of actual evidence and to substitute for it a claim of arguments.

I will grant that there are arguments for the historicity of Jesus, but that is an entirely separate conversation, one that needs to be predicated on an admission that the claim of contemporaneous evidence has been falsified.

 

[Crypto2015]

I know people who committed mass suicide, together with their families, so that their souls could hitch hike a ride on a starship hiding behind a comet.

I mean, who would do that if there wasn't indeed an alien souls collecting starship hiding behind a comet?

Ciao

- viole

The analogy does not work because the people that you describe were either (1) believing in someone else's testimony or (2) mentally ill. The apostles didn't die for something that they heard from other people, but for something that they saw with their own eyes. If the people that you mentioned died because they claimed to have seen the aliens themselves and have talked to the aliens themselves, then your analogy would be closer to being a valid analogy. However, this is not the case. The apostles weren't mentally ill. Anyone who has read Paul's letters knows for a fact that Paul had one of the brightest and most lucid minds in the history of mankind. This opinion is shared by many scholars, both Christian and non-Christian.

 

[Crypto2015]

Again, you made a claim of possessing evidence that you are unable to produce.

Where is the evidence?

You have none.

Yet you persist in your claim and now attempt, by slight of hand, to walk away from your claim of actual evidence and to substitute for it a claim of arguments.

I will grant that there are arguments for the historicity of Jesus, but that is an entirely separate conversation, one that needs to be predicated on an admission that the claim of contemporaneous evidence has been falsified.

The evidence is in Ehrman's book. Ehrman demonstrates that there are more than 10 independent attestations of Jesus' existence, all dating to less than one hundred years after the crucifixion. Moreover, Ehrman demonstrates that several of the oral traditions contained in these attestations can be traced back to Jesus' ministry or at least to no more than five years after Jesus' crucifixion. This demonstration is based on linguistic considerations. The attestations are the ones that I have mentioned before and some others that I haven't mentioned (such as the letters of Papias).

The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the numerous independent attestations of Jesus' existence while at the same time applying to Jesus (and only to Jesus) a criteria for historicity that no serious historian would apply to anyone. If you required from all of the other famous people of antiquity the same kind of things that you require from Jesus, you would have to conclude that nearly the whole history of mankind is a fable. For instance, you would not believe in the existence of Alexander the Great.

 

[Agondonter]

I do not recall anyone claiming that it was possible to disprove god, santa, the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster, rather, the point is that they are all about equally unlikely.

Anyone who uses that comparison doesn't know what he's talking about or *EDIT*

 

[Sapiens]

The evidence is in Ehrman's book. Ehrman demonstrates that there are more than 10 independent attestations of Jesus' existence, all dating to less than one hundred years after the crucifixion. Moreover, Ehrman demonstrates that several of the oral traditions contained in these attestations can be traced back to Jesus' ministry or at least to no more than five years after Jesus' crucifixion. This demonstration is based on linguistic considerations. The attestations are the ones that I have mentioned before and some others that I haven't mentioned (such as the letters of Papias).

The problem with you is that you refuse to accept the numerous independent attestations of Jesus' existence while at the same time applying to Jesus (and only to Jesus) a criteria for historicity that no serious historian would apply to anyone. If you required from all of the other famous people of antiquity the same kind of things that you require from Jesus, you would have to conclude that nearly the whole history of mankind is a fable. For instance, you would not believe in the existence of Alexander the Great.

The issue is not what people said 100 years later, that is not contemporaneous. The issue is not Alexander.

You claimed to have contemporaneous evidence. When pressed you engage in hand waving and Bart invocation and are not able to offer a straight answer (e.g., Papias was not even born when the alleged crucifixion occurred).

So ... answer the question once and for all,

DO YOU HAVE CONTEMPORANEOUS REFERENCES TO JESUS OR NOT?

YES OR NO?

 

[Crypto2015]

The issue is not what people said 100 years later, that is not contemporaneous. The issue is not Alexander.

You claimed to have contemporaneous evidence. When pressed you engage in hand waving and Bart invocation and are not able to offer a straight answer (e.g., Papias was not even born when the alleged crucifixion occurred).

So ... answer the question once and for all,

DO YOU HAVE CONTEMPORANEOUS REFERENCES TO JESUS OR NOT?

YES OR NO?

I didn't say that these independent attestations were written one hundred years after Jesus' resurrection. What I said is that all of them were written LESS than one hundred years before Jesus' crucifixion. I also said that in several cases the sources for these attestations can be traced back to Jesus' time due to linguistic and historical considerations (such as in the case of the creed contained in 1 Corinthians). All of this is demonstrated by Bart Ehrman in his book. That is the reason why, as Bart Ehrman explains, people that do not believe in Jesus' existence are laughed at by the scholars in this field.

Let's see how realistic your criteria for historicity is. Provide me with two extant contemporaneous references for Alexander the Great and for the historian Josephus.

According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University: "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.1"

 

[Sapiens]

I didn't say that these independent attestations were written one hundred years after Jesus' resurrection. What I said is that all of them were written LESS than one hundred years before Jesus' crucifixion. I also said that in several cases the sources for these nattestations can be traced back to Jesus' time due to linguistic and historical considerations (such as in the case of the creed contained in 1 Corinthians). All of this is demonstrated by Bart Ehrman in his book. That is the reason why, as Bart Ehrman explains, people that do not believe in Jesus' existence are laughed at by the scholars in this field.

Let's see how realistic your criteria for historicity is. Provide me with two extant contemporaneous references for Alexander the Great and for the historian Josephus.

According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University: "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.1"

Alexander is a red herring, not the topic of this thread. Let's deal with one issue at a time.

Why are you ducking the issue that is on the table?

Do you or do you not have even a single contemporaneous reference or not?

 

[Crypto2015]

Alexander is a red herring, not the topic of this thread. Let's deal with one issue at a time.

Why are you ducking the issue that is on the table?

Do you or do you not have even a single contemporaneous reference or not?

Another famous historian that demonstrates that the non-existence of Jesus is a ridiculous theory:

Claiming that someone's existence cannot be proven in the absence of a contemporaneous reference for said person's existence is ludicrous. If that were the criteria for historicity, the vast majority of our history would have to be considered a fable. Deep inside you know this. Where are my contemporaneous references for Alexander the Great and Josephus the historian? Are you also going to claim that they never existed?

 

[Sapiens]

Another famous historian that demonstrates that the non-existence of Jesus is a ridiculous theory:

Claiming that someone's existence cannot be proven in the absence of a contemporaneous reference for said person's existence is ludicrous. If that were the criteria for historicity, the vast majority of our history would have to be considered a fable. Deep inside you know this. Where are my contemporaneous references for Alexander the Great and Josephus the historian? Are you also going to claim that they never existed?

I have not made a claim. Not about Jesus, Alexander, or Josephus.


I did not claim that someone's existence cannot be proven in the absence of a contemporaneous reference for said person's existence.

You are the one who made a claim.

Your claim was that you had evidence of contemporaneous references to Jesus.

Clearly your claim was a fabrication and now you are unwilling to admit that fact and want to change the topic and cover up your failure to produce what you said you could.

If you want to move on to questions of the historicity of Jesus or Alexander, historical research methods, or anything else, that's fine, but those other topics need to be predicated on a clear understanding that there are no contemporaneous references to Jesus and that your claim of such is, at best, an error and at worst, a premeditated lie.

 

[Agondonter]

Anyone who uses that comparison doesn't know what he's talking about or *EDIT*

LOL! Note that it okay for people to suggest that religion or religious experience might be a mental disorder, but it's against the rules to turn the tables.

 

[gnostic]

I am citing Ehrman's book because in that book he proves without a shadow of a doubt that people like you are utterly wrong. He explains that the biblical Jesus is considered a historical person by the overwhelming majority of the historians that work in the New Testament field, whether they are Christian or not.

Jesus may be historical figure, but being historical doesn't make what the gospels write about Jesus as being true.

What the gospels (Matthew and Luke) have to say about the virgin conception and virgin birth of Jesus is most likely exaggerated and clearly distorted.

And judging by the narration in Luke's gospel, historically inaccurate. There was no census when Herod the great was alive. The census took place 10 years after herod's death, when Augustus banished Archelaus from Judaea and annexed Judaea as a Roman province 6 CE). Qurinius also didn't become governor of Syria till 6 CE; Quirinius was serving as legate in the province of Galatia at the time of Herod's last years, leading army against insurrection mountain tribe in Galatia and Cilicia.

And there was no general census throughout the empire as Luke stated.

Luke have distorted history.

 

[Sonofason]

Alexander is a red herring, not the topic of this thread. Let's deal with one issue at a time.

Why are you ducking the issue that is on the table?

Do you or do you not have even a single contemporaneous reference or not?

Hahaha, nice sidestep

 

[Sapiens]

Hahaha, nice sidestep

There is no sidestep on my part. Crypto made a claim,

We have plenty of biblical and extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion and burial

I disputed his claim and asked him to support it and all he has done since is bob and weave with extraneous bloviations.

I ask again: CRYPTO, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS?

SONOFASON; DO YOU SUPPORT CRYPTO'S CLAIM, OR WILL YOU DAMN HIM FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE HIS DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR?