There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[joelr]

You don't seem to understand averages very well either.

If the average lifespan was 38 years but there was very high child mortality, the average 30 year old would probably expect to live to 55+ with quite a few people living much longer.

Paul was writing 20 years after Jesus' purported death, 'Mark' 40 or so years later likely borrowing from earlier oral (and perhaps written) traditions.

Many people's lives would overlap these dates.

And Paul knew nothing except he had a spiritual vision and cannot say what the spiritual body looks like because it is a mystery.

It's only the first Gospel written 40 years later. Everything else was written later. It isn't real time. Half of the religion in the 2nd century is Gnostic and many Jews completely reject the idea.

Near contemporary sources are generally considered pretty good in historiography.

There are no contemporary sources. There are unconfirmed supernatural stories, mirroring religious trends in all Hellenized nations.
All historians are mentioning people who believe the Gospel narratives.
Contemporary sources for say Julius Caesar are not what we have for Jesus.

The general consensus is that Paul mentioned family and that the Gospels were a couple of decades after that based on earlier traditions.

Yes according to apologists. I care about what is true.
Paul makes no indication he is speaking of a biological brother, does not use the word for biological brother and may be talking about "brothers in the Lord".

The Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke are re-writes of Mark (see Synoptic problem) The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Mark consists of no traditions.
He rewrites Life of Romulus, duplicates and updates many OT narratives especially Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 , uses Psalms for the crucifixion narrative:
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.
Uses triadic ring cycles with events, chismus, draws many parallels from Jesus ben Ananias and of course is using trending Greek savior demigod theology.
He is also crafting earthly stories from the Epistles, for journals I would consult:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (de Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)

an example is Jesus telling Paul a message to future Christians about how he is the body and blood........Mark changes it to an actual supper. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience .... future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

You are not sure why the fact that only deified humans who lived human lives were written about close to real time matters?

Regardless that isn't Jesus. 100 years later many Christians believe Jesus is just a spirit, or a different God than the OT Yahweh, or part of the Demiurge..........the 4 gospel model isn't until around late 2nd century. That is 170 years later. Gnostics still disagreed.

You don't understand why deified humans tend to be written about in close to real time yet purely mythical beings tend to be placed further back in history?

This is a red herring. Jesus died in 30 AD. The religion formed over centuries. The evidence suggests 3 to 1 odds in favor of mythicism.

Plutarch was writing nearly a millennium after Romulus supposedly lived and all of a sudden should be uncritically accepted as accurate?

Plutarch was accurate. However the Jesus story was not in it's modern form for centuries either.
Romulus was sourced by many different authors. Dio, Livy, Plutarch, and others.

There are no sources about Romulus for many centuries after his purported death.

There is no evidence or reason to believe a cult of Romulus existed anywhere near to 750BC.

In 750 BC there was a settlement at Rome. There would have been some kind of chieftain at that time, let's call him Brutus.

If you were born in proto-Rome in 750 BC and knew that proto-Rome existed before that and was ruled by Brutus, why on earth do you think someone could persuade you that, in fact, the greta King Romulus had actually founded the city before living a heroic life that overlapped with your own?

A deified human Romulus could theoretically appear in this timescale, but it is highly implausible for a whole cloth fabrication Romulus god.

On the other hand, an origin myth like that can easily appear over time many centuries later once the city has become bigger and more important.

Is that really beyond your comprehension?

Yes and Genesis was written in 6 BC. Hellenistic and Persian theology was centuries - up to 635 BC before Christianity. Hellenistic Greeks invaded in 332 BC. These theologies made their way into Hebrew thought and ended in Christianity centuries later.

Because you can't name a single whole cloth fabrication that emerged in a similar timescale to Jesus, yet it's very easy to name many deified humans who emerged in that timescale.

The Hellenization of all Greek occupied nations resulted in Mystery religions, all having a savior deity. Possibly all in a similar time scale.


Or the Jesus story happened faster, it doesn't matter. However the
Mystery religions all happened around a similar time and Christianity was the last. The time scale doesn't provide evidence to weather the demigod was based on a human or made up wholecloth.


These saviors also existed. Possibly in "real time".



Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic

For some reason the only probabilities that matter are those that support your preconceived notions.

You haven't presented any other probabilities.

Yes, standard ill defined mythic time. Nothing at all like Jesus' human life noted in near contemporary sources.

Oh, you are claiming to know the time frames of the savior deity in all these religions? SOURCE PLEASE!

Also Mithraism wasn't from Hellenised Persians, it was Roman with some superficial Eastern traits to give it a veneer of antiquity as Romans hated innovative superstitions.

This wasn't Mithraism. It was a new Hellenized version.

Yet despite all these endless heresies, none of them relate to the real religion based around the space Jesus Paul is supposedly writing about?

Again, what are the odds of that?

What odds should we give the fact that no other mythical god appeared in near real time, and that none of the hundreds of heresies was about the space Jesus, and none of the religion's critics remembered the space Jesus cult.

One version of Ascension of Isaiah, he goes into the 3rd Heaven and sees Jesus battle Satan and is killed and resurrected.
Jesus them goes to Earth to spread his message.

Looks like we have a space Jesus.

Are you saying that this number represents anything other than his own personally assigned, highly subjective probability based on his own personal understanding of the evidence he personally selected to make the mythicist case he had solicited mostly from fellow mythicists?

No it's his case, not fellow mythicists? He expected to back up the beliefs in historicity when assigned a historicity study. But as he demonstrates in the book much of the "evidence" is built on assumptions that do not hold up. You can read the work for yourself and find a flaw or agree.

R. Lataster, PhD also did just that. and wrote his own book addressing the issue and he agrees.

 

[joelr]

You do accept that it is his opinion with an attempt to show his reasoning and why he thinks as he does, don't you? And that, assuming everyone involved is as perfectly fair and as rational as humans can be, you would expect if 100 other people looked at the same evidence and assigned their own probabilities we would see significant differences between them? And that any actual biases would be expected to skew these numbers even more?

Regardless of whether you find his arguments persuasive, do you accept that this is a correct summation? If not, what do you think?

I think 3 to 1 odds are fair.

A summary is here:

An Ongoing List of Updates to the Arguments and Evidence in On the Historicity of Jesus • Richard Carrier Blogs

My academic study On the Historicity of Jesus was published in 2014, by respected biblical studies press Sheffield-Phoenix. It was the first complete study of the historicity of Jesus to pass peer review in over a hundred years. Since then only one other has been published, Raphael Lataster’s...

www.richardcarrier.info

42 scholars who now take mythicism seriously:

List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously • Richard Carrier Blogs

There are legitimate reasons to doubt Jesus existed, even as a mundane man whose legend became exaggerated (which is, definitely, always plausible too). These reasons have survived peer review—twice. And yet a common fallacy deployed against this fact is that “no relevant experts take this...

www.richardcarrier.info

Lataster also finds this fair:

[(There Was No Jesus, There Is No God : A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism)] [By (author) Raphael Lataster] published on (September, 2013): Raphael Lataster: 0884256406713: Ama

[(There Was No Jesus, There Is No God : A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism)] [By (author) Raphael Lataster] published on (September, 2013) [Raphael Lataster] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. [(There Was...

www.amazon.com

Why it's so important to you I understand some other expert may think differently, I don't know. If they could present good evidence then great.
I care about evidence.
I am familiar with Ehrman and he's excellent. But he doesn't even acknowledge outside Greek, Persian, Roman, influence and is only interested in how a historical man became a demigod. The evidence sucks.

To my earlier point, the theology is Greek and Persian and took centuries to form Christianity.
Sanders, Hundley and Wright explain here -

Second Temple Judaism[​

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.[50] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[50] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[51][52] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[52] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[52] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[53] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[52] 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.[50] 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).[43] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead



Persian religion, Zoroastrianism had ideas Judaism did not have but picked up.

- 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

All Mystery religions have personal savior deities
- All saviors
- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)
- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon
- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers
- all have stories set on earth
- none actually existed
- Is Jesus the exception and based on a real Jewish teacher or is it all made up?

 

[Audie]

And Paul knew nothing except he had a spiritual vision and cannot say what the spiritual body looks like because it is a mystery.

It's only the first Gospel written 40 years later. Everything else was written later. It isn't real time. Half of the religion in the 2nd century is Gnostic and many Jews completely reject the idea.








There are no contemporary sources. There are unconfirmed supernatural stories, mirroring religious trends in all Hellenized nations.
All historians are mentioning people who believe the Gospel narratives.
Contemporary sources for say Julius Caesar are not what we have for Jesus.







Yes according to apologists. I care about what is true.
Paul makes no indication he is speaking of a biological brother, does not use the word for biological brother and may be talking about "brothers in the Lord".

The Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke are re-writes of Mark (see Synoptic problem) The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Mark consists of no traditions.
He rewrites Life of Romulus, duplicates and updates many OT narratives especially Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 , uses Psalms for the crucifixion narrative:
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.
Uses triadic ring cycles with events, chismus, draws many parallels from Jesus ben Ananias and of course is using trending Greek savior demigod theology.
He is also crafting earthly stories from the Epistles, for journals I would consult:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (de Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)

an example is Jesus telling Paul a message to future Christians about how he is the body and blood........Mark changes it to an actual supper. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience .... future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).



Regardless that isn't Jesus. 100 years later many Christians believe Jesus is just a spirit, or a different God than the OT Yahweh, or part of the Demiurge..........the 4 gospel model isn't until around late 2nd century. That is 170 years later. Gnostics still disagreed.





This is a red herring. Jesus died in 30 AD. The religion formed over centuries. The evidence suggests 3 to 1 odds in favor of mythicism.



Plutarch was accurate. However the Jesus story was not in it's modern form for centuries either.
Romulus was sourced by many different authors. Dio, Livy, Plutarch, and others.




Yes and Genesis was written in 6 BC. Hellenistic and Persian theology was centuries - up to 635 BC before Christianity. Hellenistic Greeks invaded in 332 BC. These theologies made their way into Hebrew thought and ended in Christianity centuries later.








The Hellenization of all Greek occupied nations resulted in Mystery religions, all having a savior deity. Possibly all in a similar time scale.


Or the Jesus story happened faster, it doesn't matter. However the
Mystery religions all happened around a similar time and Christianity was the last. The time scale doesn't provide evidence to weather the demigod was based on a human or made up wholecloth.


These saviors also existed. Possibly in "real time".



Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic








You haven't presented any other probabilities.



Oh, you are claiming to know the time frames of the savior deity in all these religions? SOURCE PLEASE!


This wasn't Mithraism. It was a new Hellenized version.



One version of Ascension of Isaiah, he goes into the 3rd Heaven and sees Jesus battle Satan and is killed and resurrected.
Jesus them goes to Earth to spread his message.

Looks like we have a space Jesus.






No it's his case, not fellow mythicists? He expected to back up the beliefs in historicity when assigned a historicity study. But as he demonstrates in the book much of the "evidence" is built on assumptions that do not hold up. You can read the work for yourself and find a flaw or agree.

R. Lataster, PhD also did just that. and wrote his own book addressing the issue and he agrees.

Paul said he had a "vision". Some believe he did.

Joseph Smith and that Mohammed said they
had visions.
There's PhD guys who write about them.

 

[joelr]

That's because you have no clue or idea anything about the historical evidence about Jesus Christ walking the earth a little over
2000 years ago.
I know it goes straight over your head...that's because you have no knowledge where to look for the historical evidence.

There is no evidence. Just stories written like fiction. Paul saw visions and Mark made up a highly fictionalized story using Hellenistic theology.
Matthew and Luke copied that and made changes they thought appropriate.
All extra-biblical evidence is reporting there are people who follow the Gospels. That is it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There is no evidence. Just stories written like fiction. Paul saw visions and Mark made up a highly fictionalized story using Hellenistic theology.
Matthew and Luke copied that and made changes they thought appropriate.
All extra-biblical evidence is reporting there are people who follow the Gospels. That is it.

There is historical evidence.
If you know where to look.
But it doesn't fit your narrative.
So you complain about things..
you have no clue or idea about.
Or where to look.

 

[joelr]

I have no clue or idea where your going.
I ask a simple question.
Who were those men that wrote the scriptures..
Where did they come from.

And from there your all over place and not one word about who those man are, that wrote the scriptures.

I am demonstrating how we know the myths were sourced from Mesopotamian legends.

Genesis was written by Israelites. The Israelite Kings had just been released from exile but the Israelites in general come from the Canaanites. DNA evidence confirms this as well. You seem to want some deeper explanation? These men were having revelations or something? They were not. You would have to provide evidence to demonstrate that. A typical story about a typical deity and syncretic myths do not suggest anything like that.

I'll link that below, Dr Joel Baden, Harvard, explaining that.


Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University lectures on this at the Yale Divinity Lectures:


Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era


(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)

14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story

25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons


26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)


36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.


Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,

40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured


Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.


Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender


Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God

Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.


Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.



Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus

Prof. Joel Baden

1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.

6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.

No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.

18:18 Isaiah 1 is 8th century. Ch 40 is suddenly different. Cyrus shows up, enter end times, Persian influence. Messianic concepts.


The only reason one would not see this is if committed to the idea that it’s not written in separate parts.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I am demonstrating how we know the myths were sourced from Mesopotamian legends.

Genesis was written by Israelites. The Israelite Kings had just been released from exile but the Israelites in general come from the Canaanites. DNA evidence confirms this as well. You seem to want some deeper explanation? These men were having revelations or something? They were not. You would have to provide evidence to demonstrate that. A typical story about a typical deity and syncretic myths do not suggest anything like that.

I'll link that below, Dr Joel Baden, Harvard, explaining that.


Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University lectures on this at the Yale Divinity Lectures:


Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era


(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)

14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story

25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons


26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)


36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.


Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,

40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured


Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.


Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender


Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God

Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.


Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.



Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus

Prof. Joel Baden

1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.

6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.

No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.

18:18 Isaiah 1 is 8th century. Ch 40 is suddenly different. Cyrus shows up, enter end times, Persian influence. Messianic concepts.


The only reason one would not see this is if committed to the idea that it’s not written in separate parts.

Look I could careless what mans teaching will say.
I only go by God's word and that's it.

 

[joelr]

Paul said he had a "vision". Some believe he did.

Joseph Smith and that Mohammed said they
had visions.
There's PhD guys who write about them.

Lot of visions. I'm gonna start having visions.

 

[joelr]

There is historical evidence.
If you know where to look.
But it doesn't fit your narrative.
So you complain about things..
you have no clue or idea about.
Or where to look.

Because my narrative is "things that are true". As well as I stay away from "completely made up fantasy based on emotional attachment to an ancient story".

I don't complain about anything. Just when people mischaracterize me or write jarbled posts saying nothing.

So please, expand my narrative and show me some evidence. Because so far all you have are fallacies, mischaracterizations, vague claims, leading nowhere. Can you get it together enough for a simple conversation?

 

[joelr]

Look I could careless what mans teaching will say.

Ok, so truth is not your thing. Scripture is writing by men and made up from older myths. This can be demonstrated. Except you don't do teaching so you will never learn that. I can take any religious book or even Lord of the Rings and claim I don't do man's teaching, I listen to Gandolph and Middle Earth. When you tell me it's fiction by Tolkien I can say "I could care less what "man"teaching will say. I follow Gandolf and Middle Earth.

I already said this, cool, have fun with that, you don't care about truth, you only care about what you imagine is true. So does every other religious fundamentalist in every religion. Don't care. Demonstrate evidence or please go away.

I only go by God's word and that's it.

Yes, I'm familiar with the circle of nonsense you want to continue going around in. No thank you. When you can demonstrate what Gods word is with actual evidence start there. Your imagination doesn't count.

 

[joelr]

Paul and Mark are independent in the sense that they didn’t copied from each other, nor from a common source………… this is what I mean by” independent”

Paul had a vision, it was a claim. Mark wrote a story, was not eyewitness and was anonymous.

If your own personal definition of “independent” includes “non pausterization”, then we simply mean different things.

The fact is that

1 you accept as nearly certain historical facts” naturalisti”c historical claims made by 2 indepdnent sources (using my definition of indepdented)

2 you reject magic claims, despite the fact that they are attested by 2 independent sources.



Therefore you have a bias against “magic” your standards are different when it comes to stuff that contradict your view.

1 million people attest to Sai Baba magic, levitation, healing, in late 1800s. Still don't buy it, probably tricks and suggestion.

Every religious deity has people who swear they saw some miracle. Memory, psychological manipulation, exaggeration, lie, wishful thinking,

We know people are flawed, and for many reasons stretch the truth, often thinking it's the correct thing to do. Every week people "lie" and speak in tounges at Baptist churches. They secretly know it's BS.

 

[Audie]

Because my narrative is "things that are true". As well as I stay away from "completely made up fantasy based on emotional attachment to an ancient story".

I don't complain about anything. Just when people mischaracterize me or write jarbled posts saying nothing.

So please, expand my narrative and show me some evidence. Because so far all you have are fallacies, mischaracterizations, vague claims, leading nowhere. Can you get it together enough for a simple conversation?

What a coincidence. I just got through
writing a similar response.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

First, you have to provide an Alien Abduction testimony that meats my standards , they I would believe in these events

Your standards seem to be that it not be logically impossible and somebody you don't know who wasn't an eyewitness claimed that other unnamed spectators were.

Incidentally, how is resurrection different from alien abduction? Somebody from above absconds with a body from earth without warning or permission. Since you believe the biblical report, you are more justified saying that Jesus was abducted by naturalistic extraterrestrials, which are much more likely to exist than supernatural entities:

• Likeliest - there was no resurrection and no witnesses claiming to have seen one, both added later.
• Next likeliest - people witnessed an illusion like a magician would perform, and Jesus was spirited off to be buried somewhere.
• Next likeliest - mass delusion
• Next likeliest - they saw a body leave earth at the hand of an advanced technological society and mistook it for a resurrection.
• Next likeliest - aliens were witnessed abducting AND resurrecting Jesus.
• Least likely - a supernatural event occurred and was accurately reported.

ether agree with my standard, or show that it is low. Then we can see if the resurrection meets the standard. all we have is..........."your stadards are low because I say so"

I've already done that. You believe scripture. There is no good reason to do that. There is no way to know if any of it is correct except by independent empirical confirmation. Before they found archeologic evidence of the historicity of David, his status was the same as Abraham, Noah, and Moses, none of whom are known to have been real people. I assume that you believe they all lived as described. I only accept that David lived, because words are not enough to establish empiric truth. And that's enough for you, even regarding extraordinary claims such as resurrection. Do you understand now?

Yes, the evidence for resurrection meets your standard of belief, and yes, it is too low.

Apart from the new testament we have 5 Roman (non christian) first century sources that confirm the resurrection as a historical event, we even have letters written by Pontius Pilate describing the resurrection of Jesus

You have no sources or any other evidence to confirm that a resurrection occurred.

The standards of a trial are “prove beyond reasonable doubt” These standards are too high, nothing form ancient history can meet those standards.

Nothing should be believed more than the evidence supports. Everything that is believed should be believed tentatively, that is, with some degree of uncertainty. We don't want to believe false ideas any more than we want to convict innocent defendants.

Sure but you can’t prove empirically that there is gratuitous suffering you can´t even proof empirically that people can suffer……………your only tool is to ask them if they are in pain, and trust in their testimony

I don't need to prove anything. And I do have empiric evidence that people can suffer. I've suffered myself. I've seen people and animals behaving as I have when they suffer.

You don't seem to understand what empiricism is. It is making judgments about how the world is and works using the senses and reason. And yes, we ask about symptoms. That's how clinical trials on pharmaceuticals is performed, and why they're double blinded - so that that collected data isn't affected by wishful thinking.

• you can´t prove empirically that Alexander the Grate had a Father named Philip
• you accept that as a historical fact
• therefore there are things that can´t be proven empirically that you accept
• therefore you are not an empiricist.

Once again, you seem not to know what empiricism is. I don't need to prove that Alexander the Great had a father named Philips. I judge the likelihood based on available evidence. I consider that likely to be historical fact, and that tentative conclusion is based in evidence. Likewise, I reject biblical claims for resurrection using the same reasoning, but much weaker supporting evidence. Thus, I consider one claim reasonably likely to be correct and the other very unlikely to be correct. That's what makes it empiricism - reason properly applied to evidence. And no, the bust is not why I consider the historicity of Philip likely.

why, if the bible is fake, how it could be so consistent

It's not consistent. It contradicts itself in multiple places.

How do you explain the archeological findings that support the Bible narrative concerning well known individuals of the day? How do you explain things we have found that support Old Testament writings that date back hundreds of years prior to Christ (such as the cuneform tablet etc).

It shows that the writers of the Bible were aware of some of their culture.

Are you really going to make the claim and entire race of people and their history are a fabrication?

I don't believe anybody has made that claim, nor need they to be skeptical about the historicity of the Bible and its stories.

The reason Christians believe in Jesus is becase there is a wealth of evidence that exists in support of Him.

It may be what they claim, but no, that is not why anybody who believes in Jesus does so. The evidence doesn't support the belief, which therefore must be held by faith to be believed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's because you have no clue or idea anything about the historical evidence about Jesus Christ walking the earth a little over
2000 years ago.
I know it goes straight over your head...that's because you have no knowledge where to look for the historical evidence.

That sounds like a load of hooey if you cannot support your claims. You may have seen those that accept the sciences or reality say the same to you. The difference is that they can support those claims. Can your support your claims or were you merely talking out of the wrong orifice?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's because you have no clue or idea anything about the historical evidence about Jesus Christ walking the earth a little over
2000 years ago.
I know it goes straight over your head...that's because you have no knowledge where to look for the historical evidence.

Yeah, that's not an answer unless you actually include this "historical evidence" you speak of.
It's just an attempted insult, at best.

You made an argument that rested on a logical fallacy. I pointed it out to you. You ignored that, and repeated the claim. I argued that you were just covering your ears and resting your belief upon a logical fallacy. Your come back to that was this attempted insult here, which indicates to me that you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scroll back to the top.
That will tell you who I'm talking with

Or you could save us all the time and just quote the people you're responding to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not if you come saying there's no historical evidence for Jesus Christ.

Please point out where it is you think I've said that.

So your called into question by your own question.
You first have to provide the evidence to back up what your saying first.
Without any evidence of your own.
To back your saying.
Your question is pointless, invalid,
Void of emptiness..

This is just a copy and paste of the exact same thing you've been repeating for pages now.
Try actually having a conversation instead of just repeating blocks of text over and over.

 

[lukethethird]

Much of the Bible is completely mythical, I just think the Jesus stuff is better explained as a human who got mythicised after his death rather than a purely imaginary being invented by some unknown person and who later folks came to believe was real.

What is the better explanation? What makes people believe this religious figure was not invented? I would like to know what makes Jesus a real historical figure. All biblical scholars agree is nothing but an echo chamber of believers declaring their faith and that is all I ever get for an historical Jesus so please, what makes Jesus historical?

 

[leroy]

So tell me, what is the source of the books you cited?
Next question: How is it that you think you're not using the Bible to prove the Bible?

these Docuemnts, (Mark Paul etc.) predate the bible. Originally they where written as independent documents. the bible is not the source for these documents, but rather the other way arround.

Later, these documents where gathered, and someone decided to make a book out of these independent documents (the new testament)

You really sound like the YEC that asks “if evolution is true, then why are there still monckeys”

So you are correct in that I am using the bible to prove the bible, but the “bible” is not a single source, the bible is a collection of multiple indepdent documents, (hence, your objection is bad)

This is why no scholar, (not even strong atheist) would use that objetion

I have no idea. You're the one claiming that magic things occur. What convinced you that magic things that defy the laws of physics actually occur? I hope it's more than you've presented here.

You failed to address, my point…………..if you already have a bias against “magic” then any attempt to provide evidence fails by default.

You are no different form a YEC that already has a bias in favor of his own interpretation of genesis, (6 day creation)……………. The fact that you would probably fail to convince a YEC that he is wrong is not indicative that your evidence is bad, because no amount of evidence will convince him to the contrary. ……………you are like this YEC.

I'll believe anything, given sufficient evidence.

ok what woudl count as evidence for magic?

Okay, so magicians aren't doing magic but the ancient peoples in the Bible were doing magic? How did you determine this?

Each alleged miracle has to be treated independnelty, once the event happens you have to determine what the more probable explanation is

• it was a lie, trick, someone made it up, etc
• it was an illution a dream, a hallucination (an honest mistake)
• it was a real miracle.

One can show that 1 is the most probable explanation for a magician. And I would argue that 3 is the most probable explanation for the resurrection.

But if the evidence changes, I can change my mind in either case, for example if you find an ancient document written by Pilate, where he explains that her ordered to stop the crucifixion, and hilled Jesus, I would change my mind.

So unlike you, I can tell you unambiguously what would be considered evidence against my view , I do have a bias (obviously) but my bias is not as strong as yours

 

[leroy]

You are still wrong Books that disagreed with what was the official version of Christianity were dropped. When you put sources through a filter and eliminate 90% of the gospels for example, you lose the ability to say the ten percent left are "independent".

Sorry, but the Romans of the Fourth Century limited the sources that you can go to. That makes them all "one source".

So what, ??even accepting your ridiculous conspiracy theory, …………… it is still a fact that Paul and Mark didn’t copied from each other nor form a common source. Hence they are independent, this is true regardless if other books where dropped or not