There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[joelr]

And what is your theory?

Well we don't think Paul made up Christianity, he was hearing about a new sect which had been brewing for centuries. Persian messianic and apocalyptic stories had already made their way into Isaiah and Daniel . The Persians occupied Judea since 539 BC and brought -

- War of good God vs Evil God/light vs dark/ God vs Satan
- Bad people burn in hell, good people wait in heaven
- A river of fire will flow over the universe burning everything up (even hell itself)
- A new better world created in it’s place
- All good people will be resurrected by God to live in that new world happily ever after


Then in 332 the Hellenistic Greeks occupy Judea. Greek occupation always caused local religions to become mystery religions,
- purpose was to gain salvation in the afterlife
- all use baptism and communion(communal meals)
- fictive kinship “brotherhood”

and the 4 trends in these religions are also always found

- Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements. Christianity is a Jewish mystery religion.
- Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.
- Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.
- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it

Of course savior deities are also a bog part of this movement. We know there was a Hellenistic Judaism which failed but Christianity was the one that didn't fail.
This happens over centuries. Religious thinkers and leaders begin getting "revelations" that they too are getting a savior and so on. People in Israel are not as familiar with other cultures like we are today. So the educated elite who have access to education and other myths begin grass-roots movements.
Paul has heard a version of a Jewish savior. He doesn't yet know any crucifixion, stories set on Earth, family, birthplace, nothing. He clearly heard a much more basic story. There are likely many many Epistles that we do not have. Jesus may have originated in the celestial realm like many other saviors, arc angels, and so on. Satan was not below, his realm was also in one of the celestial levels.
Paul was already a Jew and he chose to believe they had gotten a savior and this time it was true I would imagine. Every mystery religion I listed also had scriptures and a nation of believers who would fight for the religion or die for the religion. That isn't unique to Christianity. The other religions were either killed or driven away.
Judging by how fast one of the Dead Sea scrolls was hidden only half finished, it was probably a death sentence to not be a follower of the accepted canon.
Paul, like Muhammad or Bahai may have actually believed his writings were from a deity, sending him the correct words.

Joseph Smith, who KNEW Mormonism was not true was tried and was to be executed, had to fight a lifetime of military action to defend Mormonism and ended up being shot and cried out to his God before he died. Sounds like he really believed Mormonism. Doesn't make it true.

Paul invented a God that resurrected based on a previous myths , then he worshiped that God and even died for this God that he himself invented?

This appeal to martyrdom is not at all proof of the truth of a belief and the word is from the Greeks. Regarding Greek Gods.
Hannah, a mother who had to watch her seven sons being tortured and executed for refusing to worship the Greek gods.


worldhistory.org -
"Ancient Greece had created the concept of hero cults, with apotheosis, or the deifying of individuals after their death. Their accomplishment of great deeds in life was rewarded with being among the gods after death in the Elysian Fields. The god Herakles/Hercules was a model. People made pilgrimages to the sites of the heroes' alleged tombs and were able to petition them for benefits. Rome was slow to borrow this idea, but it became a popular way to honor great generals such as Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal in the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE).

The Maccabean Revolt​

After the death of Alexander the Great (r. 336-323 BCE), Syria was established by the ruling Seleucid Empire. In 167 BCE, Antiochus Epiphanies IV (r. 175-164 BCE) took the unprecedented step in forbidding the Jews to practice their customs. Under the Hasmonean family, the Jews revolted and defeated the Greeks. Known as the Maccabean Revolt, the story is related in four books that are now placed between the testaments in modern Bibles. 2 Maccabees established the template for several innovations that became fundamental to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. We have the story of Hannah, a mother who had to watch her seven sons being tortured and executed for refusing to worship the Greek gods."


The point is these people bought into a story about Gods and internalized it so much they would rather die than denounce the Gods. This happens with any religion.
In this time (except in Greek thought) people assumed there was some correct theism and most seemed to believe it was the one their nation had. So Paul already believing Judaism and then buying Christianity isn't unusual. Roman prisoners likely refused to deny Romulus and were killed. They thought it was. a true story.

 

[joelr]

And what is your theory?

Paul invented a God that resurrected based on a previous myths , then he worshiped that God and even died for this God that he himself invented?

Remember it doesn't just go from Judaism to Paul.
Much of the theology was already being accepted by Hebrew thinkers, but there are things we do not know. No one claims to know exactly how everything came together. Bart Ehrman wrote How Jesus Became God, which is really good. He doesn't get into other religions at all however. Litwa's latest book on Jesus does.


"

-During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]


(Sanders)



Early Christian writings, rough drafts are gone. Except for Ascension which is around the time of the Gospels. In one redaction, in a vision Isaiah sees Jesus battle Satan in an upper celestial realm and resurrect there. Later he goes down to Earth to tell of his story.

Much of Paul is probably missing, early writings are missing, the Marcionite canon is missing, all other Gospels, missing. The only exception is the Dead Sea Scrolls which show some OT stuff and a lot of different Gnostic beliefs. One says Jesus is a different deity than the OT God. One says he is only a spirit, never a man.
Why do you think this period is blacked out? Once the 4 Gospels were (sort of) harmonized there was likely tons of wildly different writings. Some may have been earlier that Paul was going by, or the scripture of the people he was talking to.

Things like the OT not having a heaven or a soul destination but the Greeks having it, or the Persians having Revelation but not Judaism is very very suspicious. To a secular person it's clear evidence of a syncretic movement. Which all religion does do.

 

[joelr]

The fact that first generation Christians belived in the resurection make that ¨theory” unlikely ………. Why because that would imply that the fiction was added by the same people who were willing to die for their believe in the resurrection.

You are basically saying that early Christians died in the name of a lie that they themselves invented. (which is unlikely)

(yes sometimes people die in the name of a lie, but people never die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented)

Yes, they would. We also do not know what Paul believed or did not. He may have fully bought into the sect telling stories about Jesus.


Muhammad's followers were initially few in number, and experienced hostility from Meccan polytheists for 13 years. To escape ongoing persecution, he sent some of his followers to Abyssinia in 615, before he and his followers migrated from Mecca to Medina (then known as Yathrib) later in 622.




Joeseph Smith (a known con-man who knew he made stuff up) was immediately brought before a military court, accused of treason, and sentenced to be executed the next morning, but Alexander Doniphan, who was Smith's former attorney and a brigadier general in the Missouri militia, refused to carry out the order.[123] Smith was then sent to a state court for a preliminary hearing, where several of his former allies testified against him.[124] Smith and five others, including Rigdon, were charged with treason, and transferred to the jail at Liberty, Missouri, to await trial.[125]

Smith bore his imprisonment stoically. Understanding that he was effectively on trial before his own people, many of whom considered him a fallen prophet, he wrote a personal defense and an apology for the activities of the Danites. "The keys of the kingdom", he wrote, "have not been taken away from us". Yet, he know's it's all fiction.




Baháʼu'lláh was the founder of the Baháʼí Faith. Though investigations found the offending pair acted alone, a "reign of terror"[49] was unleashed, killing at least 10,000 Bábís that same year[50] as government ministers vied with one another to collectively punish known or suspected Bábís, including Bahá’u’lláh. Well known for his support of the Bábí cause, Baháʼu'lláh was arrested and incarcerated in the subterranean Síyáh-Chál of Tehran, where he was bound in heavy chains that left life-long scars. Baháʼu'lláh was confined to that dungeon for four months, as the mother of the Shah and authorities seeking to curry favor with the king sought ways to justify executing him.[51]

Sikhism​

Martyrdom (called shahadat in Punjabi) is a fundamental concept in Sikhism and represents an important institution of the faith. Sikhs believe in Ibaadat se Shahadat (from love to martyrdom). Some famous Sikh martyrs include:[10]

• Guru Arjan, the fifth leader of Sikhism. Guru ji was brutally tortured for almost 5 days before he attained shaheedi, or martyrdom.
• Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru of Sikhism, martyred on 11 November 1675. He is also known as Dharam Di Chadar (i.e. "the shield of Religion"), suggesting that to save Hinduism, the guru gave his life.
• Bhai Dayala is one of the Sikhs who was martyred at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 due to his refusal to accept Islam.
• Bhai Mati Das is considered by some one of the greatest martyrs in Sikh history, martyred at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 to save Hindu Brahmins.
• Bhai Sati Das is also considered by some one of the greatest martyrs in Sikh history, martyred along with Guru Teg Bahadur at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 to save kashmiri pandits.
• Sahibzada Ajit Singh, Sahibzada Jujhar Singh, Sahibzada Zorawar Singh and Sahibzada Fateh Singh – the four sons of Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Sikh guru.
• Bhai Mani Singh, who came from a family of over 20 different martyrs

Socrates, a Greek philosopher who chose to die rather than renounce his ideals.
Husayn ibn Ali, grandson of Muhammed beheaded for opposing the Umayyad caliphate.

• – Thomas More, beheaded for refusing to acknowledge Henry VIII as Supreme Head of the Church of England.
• 1606 – Guru Arjan Dev, the fifth leader of Sikhism.
• 1675 – Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru of Sikhism, referred to as "Hind di Chadar" or "Shield of India" martyred in defense of religious freedom of Hindus.
• 1844 – Joseph Smith Jr., founder of Mormonism, killed by a mob in Carthage Jail, Illinois.

 

[joelr]

Well how do you know that resurrections are less likely than the alternative that you present?

The probability of the resurrection is determined by:

2 The probability that God Excist (say 50%)

Theism has ZERO evidence. Krishna, Jesus or Romulus, Zero.

2 + the probability that given the existence of God, miracles would occur every once in a while (say 90%)

Evidence of miracles, ZERO. Evidence of probabilities playing out as they should, 100%

3 + given miracles, the probability that the specific miracle of a resurrection occurred (say 80%)

Evidence of resurrection, ZERO. Evidence it's from a fictional story, 99%.

50%*90%*80% = 36%

So the intrinsic probability of a resurrection is 36%..................do you have any reason to think that any of these values is much smaller than what I suggest? If not, you should be ok with the 36% that I suggest.

7.8 billion people in the world right now. So 36% probability of resurrection. Great, there have been 2.8 billion resurrections you can point to just this last generation!

Your alternative

1 Paul Lied and died for the name of a Lie that he invented (less that 1% I would suggest)

No Paul bought into the apocalyptic savior deity sect because everyone really liked the model and wanted to go to the afterlife. Also a demigod/arc-angel is so much more compelling than just a supreme God up in heaven. Hellenism effected the entire world eventually. Personal savior deities is just another brilliant invention from them.

2 the authors of the gospels for some reason saw Paul’s Epistoles and decided to build upon that lie (less than 1%)

No, Mark, a schooled writer in Greek historical fiction took the OT, the Epistles, Romulus, Jesus Ben Ananias and some other sources and wrote some stunningly brilliant fiction fitting in layers of parables (regular parables, the main character teaches in parables, the story at times is a parable...)

He took a new savior demigod model and made him into a new upgraded Moses with popular Rabbi Hillel type Jewish philosophy, similar to Greek Stoic thinking.

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3 the early church flourished, as a result of that sea of lies (less than 1%)

1%*1%*1% = 0.0000001%

The growth of Mormonism was exactly the same as the growth of Christianity. Mormonism is a complete and utter made up lie. He had gold plates, but no one can see them.......millions of people believe this right now.

Same with the Cargo Cults.


The early church didn't flourish, it was broken into many sects, 1/2 Gnostic. Rome chose it to unify after a civil war because churches were already set up and they just needed to unify beliefs and kick out completely different versions.
The church took over, dark ages began. Science progresses later despite the church. Largely because Islam was originally revising Greek scientific text and using science to innovate.

Islam also grew, all based on a made up story that did have a rough draft. -

Sanaa manuscript - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But Muslim apologists deny this but it is indeed a palimpsest with an early version on it.
So Islam flourished, all on a made up revelation from an angel to ONE MAN.


Then there is Bahai, one man, claims God spoke to him. Now has hundreds of thousands of followers. Maybe millions? Just wrote new age stuff. He was thought of as a deity.
And your argument is that any of this stuff means it's true????? Well, in your special pleading case, and only your case, it means it's true.
You have an incredibly weak case. No better than the same made for Krishna or the Quran being words from God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The probability of the resurrection is determined by:

1 The probability that God Excist (say 50%)

2 + the probability that given the existence of God, miracles would occur every once in a while (say 90%)

3 + given miracles, the probability that the specific miracle of a resurrection occurred (say 80%)

50%*90%*80% = 36%

So the intrinsic probability of a resurrection is 36%..................do you have any reason to think that any of these values is much smaller than what I suggest? If not, you should be ok with the 36% that I suggest.

Your alternative

1 Paul Lied and died for the name of a Lie that he invented (less that 1% I would suggest)

2 the authors of the gospels for some reason saw Paul’s Epistles and decided to build upon that lie (less than 1%)

3 the early church flourished, as a result of that sea of lies (less than 1%)

1%*1%*1% = 0.0000001%

That's some pretty creative accounting there. The probability that the tri-omni interventionalist god of Abraham exists, who is said to have created the world in six days, and who is the one who would have resurrected Christ had that occurred is zero. You want to claim that resurrection occurred with that particular man two millennia ago, something not known to be possible, and that it was the work of a deity not known to exist, and all you have to support that is that book and unconvincing arguments based in people being honest and accurate in their reports, which we get second-hand long after the alleged fact.

We don't know just how or why Paul died. The authors of the Gospels saw Paul's epistles because they were disseminated widely in order to be seen by people, and incorporated whatever Paul wrote - true or invented - into their evolving narratives. The church didn't flourish until Constantine found it advantageous to make it the state religion and promoted it at the point of a sword. Until then, it would have been like a dozen other much smaller religions like the Baha'i and Sikhs today.

You seem to consider it acceptable that the resurrection claims arose within years of the alleged event. I don't. That should have been the talk of the town on the day it happened, like 9/11. If I told you stories of 9/11 began appearing within years of its occurrence, you'd be unimpressed. It was the talk of the town IMMEDIATELY.

"The basic claim is this: If telling a lie further displays God's truthfulness, leading to His glory, why should He condemn me for that lie? Paul has previously said that our sin does indeed result in proving God's righteous sinlessness. So if our sin brings glory to Him, in a sense, should He really condemn us for it?"

Disgusting. Not your words, I know.

This is a rationalization for "sinning," like saying that if I don't sin, Jesus died for nothing. Viewing lying for Jesus as a virtue was still alive during the Renaissance and got a boost from the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." And it's alive and well in biblical apologetics sources like the one you quoted, where it is affectionately known as "lying for Jesus" or Pious Fraud

There's plenty of evidence proof for the Historical evidence of Jesus Christ. If you know where to look . So where's your evidence that the historical of Jesus Christ did not happened..

If by a historical Jesus you mean that the Jesus as described in the New Testament including virgin birth and resurrection are history lived, that isn't known to be possible and there is no reason to believe it occurred with Jesus apart from the claims of scripture, which is not a reliable source for history. It's got the universe coming into being in six days and the earth completely flooded, neither of which happened.

If by a historical Jesus you mean was somebody who was the inspiration for the story sans the magic, yes, such a person likely lived, although we have reason to believe that even some of the mundane report such as a birth in Bethlehem is false. The story of Jesus overturning the money changers tables seems apocryphal and added to imply a strong moral sense from the beginning - the kind of thing you add later like George Washington saying, "I cannot tell a lie."

So assuming that all of the miracles and some of the mundane claims are embellishments, how much of the mundane can we strip away and still say that this story was based in the life of an actual person? Let's toss out birth in Bethlehem. What if the rest were true? Is that a historical Jesus? More or less. What if the part about being a carpenter is false, or if there was no Last Supper as depicted? What if Judas is a fictional character, but the rest of the story is accurate? Is that still a historical Jesus? If so, how much of the story can we strip away before we call it mostly myth rather than historical? What if there were only eight apostles, and two of them quit and renounced Christianity? What if there were no apostles - Just a solitary, itinerant rabbi named Jesus who later became the central character of a new religion? Is the story still historical?

 

[SkepticThinker]

you assumed that the quote is missleading because just it has ellipsis.

that is dishonest. Accusing someone for being a liar is a big accusation , that has not been supported properly by you

Ellipses are a huge red flag that something isn't right.
Can you provide us with the full quote, minus all the ellipses all over it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fact that first generation Christians belived in the resurection make that ¨theory” unlikely ………. Why because that would imply that the fiction was added by the same people who were willing to die for their believe in the resurrection.

Does it? I mean, we have "first generation" MAGAs who are convinced that Trump actually won the election that occurred less than three years ago.

You are basically saying that early Christians died in the name of a lie that they themselves invented. (which is unlikely)

(yes sometimes people die in the name of a lie, but people never die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented)





Well how do you know that resurrections are less likely than the alternative that you present?

The probability of the resurrection is determined by:

2 The probability that God Excist (say 50%)

2 + the probability that given the existence of God, miracles would occur every once in a while (say 90%)

3 + given miracles, the probability that the specific miracle of a resurrection occurred (say 80%)

50%*90%*80% = 36%

So the intrinsic probability of a resurrection is 36%..................do you have any reason to think that any of these values is much smaller than what I suggest? If not, you should be ok with the 36% that I suggest.

This math is terrible. The probability of god existing is not 50%. It just goes downhill from there.

Your alternative

1 Paul Lied and died for the name of a Lie that he invented (less that 1% I would suggest)

2 the authors of the gospels for some reason saw Paul’s Epistoles and decided to build upon that lie (less than 1%)

3 the early church flourished, as a result of that sea of lies (less than 1%)

1%*1%*1% = 0.0000001%

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because they didn’t copied from each other, nor form a common source.

Except that they did copy from each other.

Well that is the point, Paul and the apostles claimed to have seen a bodily resurrection……. (unlike you and your grandmother)

No, he isn't claiming to have seen any bodily resurrection. He's claiming to have seen a light and heard a voice. Which is much worse than my grandmother because at least I actually saw her AND heard her voice.

If they would have had –“just a dream” they would have claimed that they saw Jesus in a “divine Dream” that would have been a valid miracle for them too.

Would they? Who knows.

If you have the ability to tell the difference between a dream and the real world, why wouldn’t Paul and the apostles have the same ability?

I haven't claimed he had a dream. I'm going by the description given that he saw a light and heard a voice. That could be a dream. It could be an hallucination. It could have actually happened and not been Jesus' voice. Who knows. It's an old story in an old book.

To follow the analogy.

1 Imagine that not only you but your family and neighbors also saw your grandmother entering to your house.

2 you and your neighbors talk to her, touched her ate with her etc.

3 then you go to visit her tomb, and you find out that the tomb is empty

4 your grandmother tells you that she resurrected, that she was send by God for some reason.

Wouldn’t that be awesome evidence for a resurrection?

None of this or anything even close to it happened to Paul, according to the story.

Just curios, how do you know that the authors of the Gospels where not witnesses?

They don't even claim to be. Luke flat out tells us that his is based on hearsay. Never mind that we don't even actually know who wrote them. Also, the stories are told in the third person.

The bible didn’t exist, when the gospels and Paul´s epistles where written

It exists now. And it is the source of everything you're claiming here.

My point is that of all the lies and miracles that someone could have invented, it is strage that both Mark and Paul invented the same lie (resurection)

You do understand that people can spread lies that they actually believe to be true, right? Like anti-vaxxers, for instance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I answered that question..

You didn't. I asked for quotes referring to the resurrection. You did not provide such quotes.

Your called into question by your own question.
You first have to provide your evidence to back up what your asking..

What are you talking about?

It's not up to me or anyone else..
To answer your question.

It's up to the person I asked the question of. That was not you.

Are you always in the habit of asking people for evidence that you, yourself have no evidence to back up what your asking first. that you have no evidence of your own..to back up what your asking first.

What evidence do you think I need when asking a person who claims bodily resurrection is discussed in the Bible, for quotations from said Bible that reference bodily resurrection??

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's plenty of evidence proof for the Historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
If you know where to look .
So where's your evidence that the historical of Jesus Christ did not happened..
So your called into question by your own question.
You first must have evidence to back up what your saying.

Without any evidence of your own..
Your question is invalid. Void.
And meaningless..

I have no idea what you're talking about.
I think you're confused.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't even go there.
I gave you the situation.

No, you didn't. You gave me no details of any "situation."

You said, "
"Yes people may lie all the time
But if someone held a a knife to your throat and told you to give up the lie or die.
Now would you be so willing to die for a lie ??"

There is no specific situation discussed in that.

The situation is about the historical evidence of Jesus Christ.

If someone held a knife to your throat, you either give up the lie or you die.
Now would you die for a lie, knowing it's a lie.

I gave examples of people dying for lies and you didn't address them.

This question doesn't make sense, as pertaining to myself.

Human nature tells us..no one would die for a lie..knowing it's a lie.

Human nature does not tell us that. Human behaviour shows us that people can and do die for lies, whether they know it's a lie or not. I gave you examples that you ignored. Other posters provided much better examples as well.

Neither would those people back a little over 2000 years ago.

Nonsense.

Christians were cast into the Roman coliseum among wild animals.. because they would not confess what they were saying to be a lie..
So there's the historical evidence of Jesus Christ outside of the bible.

That's not historical evidence of Jesus Christ outside the Bible. It's merely an assertion.

Now inside of the bible..
All those people who followed witnessing hearing, seeing Jesus Christ..

What four people? Surely not the anonymous gospel writers who do not claim to be eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

A lot of those people died..all because they would not denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.

How do you know that?

So there's the historical evidence of Jesus Christ inside the Bible and outside of the bible..

Nope, again, that's not historical evidence of Jesus Christ.

 

[leroy]

Because it sounds as unlikely to be accurate as if I were to use the same technique to prove that there is no God.

Why is it unlikely be accurate?

I personally find it unlikely that such a popular quote if inaccurate has never been corrected by the author or other “anti-christian” communicators……….

the same technique to prove that there is no God.

Please explain, because my best prediction is that you are changing the topic

There is no valid excuse for such a short truncated quote today. When one is quoting someone that disagrees with you one needs to go out of one's way to show that one is being accurate. You unfortunately seem to support this sort of lying.

The quote is irrelevant for me, I simply shared the quote because you asked for it.
I´ll bet that the quote is accurate, because there are multiple sites (including Wikipedia) that use that quote……… your stupid conspiracy theory where evil Christian organizations are hacking sites and inventing quotes is ridiculous, specially because it would have been very easy to trump.

Even Bart Erdmann has a critique, and explains why he disagrees with the date, but he doesn’t dispute the accuracy of that Quote.


I care about the reasons and arguments for why Scholars claim that the creed is early. (which I happen to find compelling)

I made you a more than a reasonable offer to you. Why didn't you accept it?

No Idea, what offer are you talkign about ¿?

 

[leroy]

That's some pretty creative accounting there. The probability that the tri-omni interventionalist god of Abraham exists, who is said to have created the world in six days, and who is the one who would have resurrected Christ had that occurred is zero. You want to claim that resurrection occurred with that particular man two millennia ago, something not known to be possible, and that it was the work of a deity not known to exist, and all you have to support that is that book and unconvincing arguments based in people being honest and accurate in their reports, which we get second-hand long after the alleged fact.

You don’t need to appeal to that specific God, just a generic type of God.


Do you think that the existence of that God is very unlikely? Why?

We don't know just how or why Paul died. The authors of the Gospels saw Paul's epistles because they were disseminated widely in order to be seen by people, and incorporated whatever Paul wrote - true or invented - into their evolving narratives. The church didn't flourish until Constantine found it advantageous to make it the state religion and promoted it at the point of a sword. Until then, it would have been like a dozen other much smaller religions like the Baha'i and Sikhs today.

You seem to consider it acceptable that the resurrection claims arose within years of the alleged event. I don't. That should have been the talk of the town on the day it happened, like 9/11. If I told you stories of 9/11 began appearing within years of its occurrence, you'd be unimpressed. It was the talk of the town IMMEDIATELY.

The church started to flourished shortly after the crucifixion, such that it was a problem for the roman empire (this is why Christians where persecuted)

Imagine that you invent that someone resurrected in New York……….. how likely are you to convince anybody? How likely is it that your lie will flourish in NEW York within 1 generation after the event?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is it unlikely be accurate?

I personally find it unlikely that such a popular quote if inaccurate has never been corrected by the author or other “anti-christian” communicators……….


Please explain, because my best prediction is that you are changing the topic





The quote is irrelevant for me, I simply shared the quote because you asked for it.
I´ll bet that the quote is accurate, because there are multiple sites (including Wikipedia) that use that quote……… your stupid conspiracy theory where evil Christian organizations are hacking sites and inventing quotes is ridiculous, specially because it would have been very easy to trump.

Even Bart Erdmann has a critique, and explains why he disagrees with the date, but he doesn’t dispute the accuracy of that Quote.


I care about the reasons and arguments for why Scholars claim that the creed is early. (which I happen to find compelling)




No Idea, what offer are you talkign about ¿?

There are multiple sites that use the quote in full, or the one you shared with all the ellipses?

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out things that actually occur. Quote mines can be found all over the internet. Heck, they can be found in a multitude of evolution threads on this very forum. The inclusion of several different ellipses in a quote is a red flag that the quote may have been snipped from a larger quote, and often when this is done, it's because it's been taken out of context.

If you wrote a paper with quotes like that all over it, you'd get red flagged in the very least.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don’t need to appeal to that specific God, just a generic type of God.

You are not appealing to a "generic type of God" though. You're appealing to a very specific God.

Do you think that the existence of that God is very unlikely? Why?




The church started to flourished shortly after the crucifixion, such that it was a problem for the roman empire (this is why Christians where persecuted)

Imagine that you invent that someone resurrected in New York……….. how likely are you to convince anybody? How likely is it that your lie will flourish in NEW York within 1 generation after the event?

How did all the MAGAs become convinced that Trump actually won the election that he lost?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it unlikely be accurate?

I personally find it unlikely that such a popular quote if inaccurate has never been corrected by the author or other “anti-christian” communicators……….


Please explain, because my best prediction is that you are changing the topic





The quote is irrelevant for me, I simply shared the quote because you asked for it.
I´ll bet that the quote is accurate, because there are multiple sites (including Wikipedia) that use that quote……… your stupid conspiracy theory where evil Christian organizations are hacking sites and inventing quotes is ridiculous, specially because it would have been very easy to trump.

Even Bart Erdmann has a critique, and explains why he disagrees with the date, but he doesn’t dispute the accuracy of that Quote.


I care about the reasons and arguments for why Scholars claim that the creed is early. (which I happen to find compelling)




No Idea, what offer are you talkign about ¿?

Take yourself as an example. You should be able to understand if you can do that.

You are back on corrections only for a while. Remember, to demand evidence on needs to be an honest interlocutor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not appealing to a "generic type of God" though. You're appealing to a very specific God.

How did all the MAGAs become convinced that Trump actually won the election that he lost?

Wait! Are you saying that he didn't??

 

[leroy]

Take yourself as an example. You should be able to understand if you can do that.

You are back on corrections only for a while. Remember, to demand evidence on needs to be an honest interlocutor.

More pathetic excuses for not supporting your claim.

 

[leroy]

Ellipses are a huge red flag that something isn't right.
Can you provide us with the full quote, minus all the ellipses all over it?

No, I don’t have access to the quote, I will not buy the book for such a trivial and irrelevant thing

 

[leroy]

Does it? I mean, we have "first generation" MAGAs who are convinced that Trump actually won the election that occurred less than three years ago.

no Idia what a MAGA is,

But if you show that MAGAS are claiming stuff despite the fact that they have nothing to win and everything to lose, would be evidence that these people honestly think that their claims are true

This math is terrible. The probability of god existing is not 50%. It just goes downhill from there.

50% would be the probability assuming that there is no good evidence for nor against god.

If you think that the probability is much lower than 50% this would mean that you have good reasons to reject the existence of God.

So what are your reasons to reject the existence of God? What is the probability of God given those pieces of evidence?