There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

More pathetic excuses for not supporting your claim.

No, your refusal to understand support when it is given relieves me of the burden of proof. You continually fail at consistent rational reasoning. Your failure was made clear to you not only by me. I am rather amazed that you do not know how a proper quote is done. To bad that your fear keeps your from learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Then you just admitted that your own quote was worthless. Oh my! There is no need for others to refute you, you are self refuting.

 

[leroy]

Except that they did copy from each other.

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.

Would they? Who knows.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Never mind that we don't even actually know who wrote them.

So how do you know that they were not witnesses, when even by your admition, you don’t even know who wrote them?



As for the rest you seem to be just bouncing from one position to an other, why don’t you explain to exactly what position are you defending?

1 Paul and the apostoles had a hallucination/dream (they were honest about that) and later Christians added words to his mouth so that it seems that the resurrection was physical?

2 did Paul the apostles lied about the experiences that they claimed to have had?

3 where they hallucintations that they wrongly interpreted as physical resurections?

4 something else?

 

[leroy]

Then you just admitted that your own quote was worthless. Oh my! There is no need for others to refute you, you are self refuting.

I´ts worthless according to your own arbitrary and unjustified standards

By the way, please provide the exact quote from josephus, where he claims that the census was made in 6AC

I what the exact quote form josephus, if you don’t provide that quote then your argument and all your claims about the census are wrong.

Can you meet your own ridiculous standards?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Yes I sure would ..knowing it wasn't a lie but the truth..
Which you have no understanding of..why wouldn't a person denounce the truth as a lie just to save themselves..
There is a difference.
Knowing something is a lie and denouncing it
that its nothing more than a lie..

But knowing it's the absolute truth.
Why should I not stand up for truth even to point of death.
There have been many people sent to their graves for the truth which they held..
Just like those Christians that were put to death in the Roman Colosseum among wild animals.
a little over 2000 years ago.

All because they would not denounce the truth being a lie.
So even to the point of death they would not denounce the truth being a lie.

Well... Many people have also died for a truth that resulted in being false. They weren't lying, they just didn't realize the truth was yet to be found.

Be giving of vindication, or none is what you shall receive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´ts worthless according to your own arbitrary and unjustified standards

By the way, please provide the exact quote from josephus, where he claims that the census was made in 6AC

I what the exact quote form josephus, if you don’t provide that quote then your argument and all your claims about the census are wrong.

Can you meet your own ridiculous standards?

On my! Foolishly taking on the burden of proof again. Now you need to prove that it is not arbitrary. And we all know from experience that you never support your claims properly.

I will explain to you, though I doubt if you will understand it. A source that quotes someone else has to make the source available so that people can verify that the quote is accurate. If people cannot vet your claims they are worthless.

And sorry, your demand only shows your lack of understanding. This is why you are on corrections only.

 

[leroy]

On my! Foolishly taking on the burden of proof again. Now you need to prove that it is not arbitrary. And we all know from experience that you never support your claims properly.

I will explain to you, though I doubt if you will understand it. A source that quotes someone else has to make the source available so that people can verify that the quote is accurate. If people cannot vet your claims they are worthless.

And sorry, your demand only shows your lack of understanding. This is why you are on corrections only.

That simply shows your intellectual hypocrisy, your 6AD date doesn’t comes from Josephus directly , it comes form a website (I bet an antichristian site) that claims to be quoting from Josephus.

So if you had a problem with my quote, you should also have a problem with your evidence



You can’t demand ridiculously high standards of evidence, if you are not willing to meet those standards for your claims.

I didn’t asked for the original quote form Josephus because I knew it was a ridiculous and useless requirement , but we can play by your rules.

This is why you are on corrections only.

You keep repeating that lie over and over again.

If I where in “corrections only” you would have the courtesy of quoting my words and explain why are they wrong (and therefore require correction)……………. You can’t do that because you know that the few mistakes that I have made in this thread have been corrected and acknowledge by myself.

 

[leroy]

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.

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

Luckily this is not a paper

But even more important the quote is not relevant for me, none of my claims falls or stands depending on the accuracy of that quote, if you think the quote is relevant then you are the one who has to look for the original quote.

 

[leroy]

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

there are multiple sites that afirm that gred ludeman dates the creed at 2 or 3 years after the crusifixtion.


some sites have that quote with the ellipses others simply Paraphrase the words of the book.

"Gerd Lüdemann maintains that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus [...] not later than three years".[16] "
for example this comes from wikipedia



I mean do you honestly think that this erroneous quote could survive without any scholar (or Ludeman himself) noticing that Christians apologist are misusing the quote?

Atheist scholars that disagree with the date, don’t argue that the quote is inaccurate, nor misleading

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well... Many people have also died for a truth that resulted in being false. They weren't lying, they just didn't realize the truth was yet to be found.

Be giving of vindication, or none is what you shall receive.

So you want me to believe those people back there 2000 years ago
After seeing and hearing Jesus Christ.
It was false..
So I get it..
If someone came up to you.and hit you straight in the mouth and you lost some teeth ..they didn't really hit you... it's just your false thinking they hit you..Lol

 

[Faithofchristian]

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.



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 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.

Nonsense.

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

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

How do you know that?

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

That's your assumption.
Did you even bother to read my post.
I gave how those people back a little over 2000
Were put to death in the Roman coliseum because they would not denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.

Then I ask..if someone held a knife to your throat.. either you give the lie or you will die
Human nature tells us..rather than die for a lie.. you'll give up the lie.
Knowing its nothing more than a lie.
So rather than admit it was a lie.to save their life..
Those people died rather denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.
So therefore those people either died for a lie knowing its a lie.
Or they died for the truth
But human nature tells us no one would die for a lie knowing factual it's a lie.
So there's lays the Historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
Which you can't handle.
But then...even if you knew the truth..you would denounce it to be a lie..just to save your skin..

 

[ppp]

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 ??

This is silly. History is full of people both willing to die for a lie, and of those who have died for a lie. Yes, something that they knew was a lie.

Sheesh!

 

[Twilight Hue]

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..

The only evidence I see is the evidence that early Christians existed who adopted an avatar for their cult.

 

[Faithofchristian]

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.

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

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?

Where is that written at.
God created the world in 6 days
The earth was already there..
Before God created anything on the earth.
Now your making assumptions
None of disciples denounce Christianity..
It's you trying to get out of the historical evidence of Jesus Christ did exist.
By your making assumptions and things up.

The only evidence I see is the evidence that early Christians existed who adopted an avatar for their cult.

There were no Christians at the time Jesus Christ was here on earth.
So how is it that you come by early Christians.when Christians didn't exist at the time of Jesus Christ walk upon the earth.
Christianity didn't come into existence about 70 years after Jesus Christ.
Therefore those people who saw and listen to Jesus Christ were not Christians..
Those people who were put to death in the Roman coliseum were Christians. About 70 years after Jesus Christ was here on earth.
So I guess you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Audie]

That's your assumption.
Did you even bother to read my post.
I gave how those people back a little over 2000
Were put to death in the Roman coliseum because they would not denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.

Then I ask..if someone held a knife to your throat.. either you give the lie or you will die
Human nature tells us..rather than die for a lie.. you'll give up the lie.
Knowing its nothing more than a lie.
So rather than admit it was a lie.to save their life..
Those people died rather denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.
So therefore those people either died for a lie knowing its a lie.
Or they died for the truth
But human nature tells us no one would die for a lie knowing factual it's a lie.
So there's lays the Historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
Which you can't handle.
But then...even if you knew the truth..you would denounce it to be a lie..just to save your skin..

Like the boys of 911, deluded into
thinking a martyrs death buys status in
the afterlife.
And fearing eternal torment if they renounced
their faith.

This is supposed to be a selling point for
this religion?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Like the boys of 911, deluded into
thinking a martyrs death buys status in
the afterlife.
And fearing eternal torment if they renounced
their faith.

This is supposed to be a selling point for
this religion?

What religion are you in reference to

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well... Many people have also died for a truth that resulted in being false. They weren't lying, they just didn't realize the truth was yet to be found.

Be giving of vindication, or none is what you shall receive.

I'm not buying into that..
It's amazing how people come up with things
when confronted with the truth.
I gave the historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
.
Outside of the bible and inside the Bible.
Outside of the bible.
The truth lays in the
Roman colosseum.
People were put to death because they would not denounce the truth they held about seeing and hearing for themselves Jesus Christ.

Then there's those thousand of people who followed Jesus Christ while he was here on earth..that were put to death, because they would not denounce the truth about Jesus Christ...
There's lays the Historical evidence inside the Bible.

 

[Colt]

How do you demonstrate they are writings from a celestial being? What information do they give that is beyond our current science and mathematics. What clear and unquestionable prophecies do they give? Did they give a string of digits in pi that we have not yet calculated up to?
Do they say when we will see the light from a distant supernova that is currently on the way?
Did they solve the Riemann Hypothesis or unify gravity with quantum mechanics. How about a cure for cancer?

what do they give that a human could not possibly make up?

OR, are your standards of evidence ridiculously so low that they give nothing of the sort and you just believe it because it sounds good?

Your questions are completely legitimate questions, but I have no proofs.

Our family attended a moderate Methodist church where I heard stuff that I did NOT believe, OT stuff like Noah's flood, parting seas, a monstrous deity responsible for horrific atrocities. Oddly, I never had an issue with Jesus, I assumed that his spiritual truth was superior and did not endorse the OT ways. It was obvious to me before I ever really thought about it that the earth is quite old, that life evolved, and man is related to other living things.

My father was a closet Urantia Book reader from the 60's. The family would be gathered in the den watching M.A.S.H. or Archi Bunker, dad is over in his recliner reading the UB. Every so often he would get our attention and read an interesting paragraph from the UB. My ears would perk up, it was as if I already knew the material!

Its the arrangement of the material by the minds behind the book that I find compelling. Revelators are NOT allowed to give mankind unearned knowledge about science. We are supposed to be searching for both material and spiritual truth. However it appears that some of the content had been proposed by humans but not widely known in 1911-34, printed 1955. I will give a couple of examples:

BY CAITLIN O'KANE

FEBRUARY 19, 2019 / 3:35 PM / CBS NEWS

Scientists have discovered 300,000 new galaxies

Urantia Book 1955

12:2.2 (130.4) Although the unaided human eye can see only two or three nebulae outside the borders of the superuniverse of Orvonton, your telescopes literally reveal millions upon millions of these physical universes in process of formation. Most of the starry realms visually exposed to the search of your present-day telescopes are in Orvonton, but with photographic technique the larger telescopes penetrate far beyond the borders of the grand universe into the domains of outer space, where untold universes are in process of organization. And there are yet other millions of universes beyond the range of your present instruments.

12:2.3 (130.5) In the not-distant future, new telescopes will reveal to the wondering gaze of Urantian astronomers no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space. At the same time these more powerful telescopes will disclose that many island universes formerly believed to be in outer space are really a part of the galactic system of Orvonton. The seven superuniverses are still growing; the periphery of each is gradually expanding; new nebulae are constantly being stabilized and organized; and some of the nebulae which Urantian astronomers regard as extragalactic are actually on the fringe of Orvonton and are traveling along with us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Early Occupation of Britain Summary​

The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project (“AHOB project”) was launched in 2001 to revitalize the study of ancient archaeological sites in Britain. By 2005 AHOB researchers were able to establish that primitive man occupied Britain 700,000 years ago. This discovery came as quite a surprise to the archaeological community. Prior to this recent development, the evidence for early human habitation only went back 500,000 years.

The Urantia Book, published in 1955, states that human habitation of Britain began approximately 900,000 years ago. Noting that there used to be a land bridge between Britain and France, it also remarks that, even though most of the evidence of human occupation is now submerged in the English Channel, there are still several sites near the coast bearing evidence of this early occupation. This is where recent discoveries have been made that push back the date of human habitation by 200,000 years. Additional work by the AHOB project is increasingly lending support to this aspect of The Urantia Book’s account of early human history. It is anticipated that this report will need to be updated numerous times in the next several years as the AHOB team continues to make new discoveries.

Early Migration to Britain Overview​

The Urantia Book, published in 1955, makes several statements about the early occupation of Britain. Recently, the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project (“AHOB project”) has made a number of surprising discoveries which support the statements made in The Urantia Book.

Most importantly, the AHOB project findings have pushed the earliest human occupation of Britain back considerably. Until this decade, scientific consensus dated human life in Britain to about 500,000 years ago. However, the AHOB project has discovered two different sites with human artifacts that date to 700,000 years ago. At the first site, off the Norfolk coast near Happisburgh, two hand axes have been found sticking out of the seabed in the remains of an ancient forest. Both hand axes, as well as the forest, were dated to between 500,000 and 700,000 years ago.

The second site, at Pakefield in East Anglia, yielded over thirty worked flint flakes and one flint core- suggesting frequent human visitors to the site. Since the flints were found in sediments that contained microscopic animal bones scientists were able to use a technique called the “vole clock” to date the flints to about 700,000 years ago. The findings from both sites were announced in 2005 in peer-reviewed articles in Nature. The article makes the importance of these discoveries clear: “Until now, the earliest uncontested artifacts from northern Europe were much younger, suggesting that humans were unable to colonize northern latitudes until about 500 kyr ago.”

However, these recent findings confirm statements made over fifty years earlier in The Urantia Book. The following passages are not sequential; see the full report or citations:

950,000 years ago the descendants of Andon and Fonta [the first two human beings] had migrated far to the east and to the west. To the west they passed over Europe to France and England. . .

During most of the ice age England was connected by land with France. . . At the time of the Andonic migrations there was a continuous land path from England in the west on through Europe . . .

900,000 years ago the arts of Andon and Fonta . . . were vanishing from the face of the earth; culture, religion, and even flintworking were at their lowest ebb.

These were the times when large numbers of inferior mongrel groups were arriving in England from southern France. These tribes were so largely mixed with the forest apelike creatures that they were scarcely human. They had no religion but were crude flintworkers and possessed sufficient intelligence to kindle fire.

They were followed in Europe by a somewhat superior and prolific people, whose descendants soon spread over the entire continent from the ice in the north to the Alps and Mediterranean in the south.

During this long period of cultural decadence the Foxhall peoples of England . . . continued to hold on to some of the traditions of Andon and certain remnants of the culture of Onagar.

The Foxhall peoples were farthest west and succeeded in retaining much of the Andonic culture; they also preserved their knowledge of flintworking, which they transmitted to their descendants, the ancient ancestors of the Eskimos.

Though the remains of the Foxhall peoples were the last to be discovered in England, these Andonites were really the first human beings to live in those regions. At that time the land bridge still connected France with England; and since most of the early settlements of the Andon descendants were located along the rivers and seashores of that early day, they are now under the waters of the English Channel and the North Sea, but some three or four are still above water on the English coast.

700,000 years ago the fourth glacier, the greatest of all in Europe, was in recession; men and animals were returning north. The climate was cool and moist, and primitive man again thrived in Europe and western Asia. Gradually the forests spread north over land which had been so recently covered by the glacier.

The Urantia Book states that the “Foxhall peoples” were the first human occupants of Britain. Interestingly, the name “Foxhall peoples” seems to have come from an obscure 1905 article by Nina Frances Layard detailing her excavation work at the Paleolithic site at Foxhall Road, Ipswich. Layard made a number of remarkable discoveries including early hand axes and remains of extinct mammals, but her work was not widely recognized until 2005, when two AHOB researchers published Miss Layard excavates: the Palaeolithic site at Foxhall Road, Ipswich, 1903-1905. The Urantia Booktherefore seems prescient in acknowledging this as an important piece of scholarly work.

The Urantia Book’s description of the “Foxhall peoples” is consistent with the findings of the AHOB project, stating that 1) the “Foxhall peoples” had knowledge of flint working, 2) their settlements were located near rivers and seashores on a land bridge connecting France to Britain, 3) only three or four settlements remain above water, and 4) they lived in this region as far back as 900,000 years ago.

In conclusion, the discoveries made by the AHOB project over the last ten years bring scientific consensus in line with statements made in The Urantia Book, which was published over fifty years ago. Scholars have now pushed back the date for the earliest human occupation of Britain to 700,000 years ago, which is consistent with The Urantia Book’s statements and bring them 200,000 years closer to its claim that humans were actually first there about 900,000 years ago.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I addressed both. But were you arguing that the demigod of the New Testament was raised by generic god different from the one I've told you has been ruled out? You don't believe that some other god or gods resurrected Jesus, so why are we discussing one?

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

It confuses me when you capitalize God. The god people of your faith call "God" doesn't exist. No interventionalist god has been detected, and we wouldn't expect to know about gods that don't intervene, i.e.., leave revelation, appear on earth, perform miracles, answer prayers, etc., so we have no basis for choosing whether such a thing exists or not as its existence is unfalsifiable by virtue of the fact that it doesn't manifest in reality or consciousness. But also, the existence or nonexistence of such a god would be irrelevant and knowledge of its existence of no practical value.

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)

I don't know the details of the early history of the church, but being a pest to local authorities doesn't constitute flourishing. The church would not have flourished under Paul, just grown from a mustard seed to an acorn. It was the swords of the Roman Legions, the Crusaders, and the Conquistadores that made Christianity a world religion. The Catholic Church scattered the countryside with cathedrals and parish churches for centuries, stocking them with a hierarchy of professional clergy. Later, it was missionaries including the Gideons putting Bibles in every hotel room and those traveling to exotic locales to convert the indigenes. Then televangelists, and last year, multi-million dollar Super Bowl ads for Jesus. That's how a church flourishes.

Imagine that you invent that someone resurrected in New York……….. how likely are you to convince anybody?

Seriously? I'm very likely to convince many people.

How likely is it that your lie will flourish in NEW York within 1 generation after the event?

Flourish? I think there could still be people believing that if others were preaching it. I think we have different ideas about people's native gullibility. How about the flat earthers and the moon landing deniers? Recently, we've seen climate deniers, vaccine deniers, fair election deniers, and fair investigations deniers. If people continue to promote those ideas, they will persist, or as you call it, flourish (not my definition).

no Idea what a MAGA is,

It stands for Make America Great Again, was Trump's campaign slogan in 2016, and resulted in iconic red baseball caps with MAGA written on them. They were originally the die-hard Trump fans and considered a deluded cult by outsiders, but I think the term has expanded to mean any of what used to be called alt-right, which includes all of the Trump wanna-bes and imitators.

It's amazing how people come up with things
when confronted with the truth.

Your definition of truth is different from mine. I need empiric confirmation of an idea to call it correct or true. For the believer, whatever unfalsifiable claim he has chosen to believe is called truth. When confronted by that kind of "truth," the critical thinker rejects it for not being demonstrably correct.

The truth lays in the
Roman colosseum.
People were put to death because they would not denounce the truth they held about seeing and hearing for themselves Jesus Christ.

Here's a nice example of what you mean by truth. People dying for a belief doesn't make the belief true. You already know that. How many died at Heaven's Gate for belief in a false doctrine? If it could happen there, it could have happened in biblical times as well and likely did assuming these stories of so many early martyrs aren't apocryphal. And the existence of the Roman Coliseum is not evidence for any of this.

Then there's those thousand of people who followed Jesus Christ while he was here on earth..that were put to death, because they would not denounce the truth about Jesus Christ...
There's lays the Historical evidence inside the Bible.

This is the same rejected, fallacious argument.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I addressed both. But were you arguing that the demigod of the New Testament was raised by generic god different from the one I've told you has been ruled out? You don't believe that some other god or gods resurrected Jesus, so why are we discussing one?

It confuses me when you capitalize God. The god people of your faith call "God" doesn't exist. No interventionalist god has been detected, and we wouldn't expect to know about gods that don't intervene, i.e.., leave revelation, appear on earth, perform miracles, answer prayers, etc., so we have no basis for choosing whether such a thing exists or not as its existence is unfalsifiable by virtue of the fact that it doesn't manifest in reality or consciousness. But also, the existence or nonexistence of such a god would be irrelevant and knowledge of its existence of no practical value.

I don't know the details of the early history of the church, but being a pest to local authorities doesn't constitute flourishing. The church would not have flourished under Paul, just grown from a mustard seed to an acorn. It was the swords of the Roman Legions, the Crusaders, and the Conquistadores that made Christianity a world religion. The Catholic Church scattered the countryside with cathedrals and parish churches for centuries, stocking them with a hierarchy of professional clergy. Later, it was missionaries including the Gideons putting Bibles in every hotel room and those traveling to exotic locales to convert the indigenes. Then televangelists, and last year, multi-million dollar Super Bowl ads for Jesus. That's how a church flourishes.

Seriously? I'm very likely to convince many people.

Flourish? I think there could still be people believing that if others were preaching it. I think we have different ideas about people's native gullibility. How about the flat earthers and the moon landing deniers? Recently, we've seen climate deniers, vaccine deniers, fair election deniers, and fair investigations deniers. If people continue to promote those ideas, they will persist, or as you call it, flourish (not my definition).

It stands for Make America Great Again, was Trump's campaign slogan in 2016, and resulted in iconic red baseball caps with MAGA written on them. They were originally the die-hard Trump fans and considered a deluded cult by outsiders, but I think the term has expanded to mean any of what used to be called alt-right, which includes all of the Trump wanna-bes and imitators.

Your definition of truth is different from mine. I need empiric confirmation of an idea to call it correct or true. For the believer, whatever unfalsifiable claim he has chosen to believe is called truth. When confronted by that kind of "truth," the critical thinker rejects it for not being demonstrably correct.

Here's a nice example of what you mean by truth. People dying for a belief doesn't make the belief true. You already know that. How many died at Heaven's Gate for belief in a false doctrine? If it could happen there, it could have happened in biblical times as well and likely did assuming these stories of so many early martyrs aren't apocryphal. And the existence of the Roman Coliseum is not evidence for any of this.

This is the same rejected, fallacious argument.

So you say..which doesn't change the facts..
How Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum.and that's a stated fact of history down through the ages.