There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, they became one source due to the process of competing sources being eliminated. I know, your superstitious beliefs will not allow you to understand this.


This is just another place where you have been shown to be wrong but cannot be honest enough with yourself to admit it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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)

Addressed by @Subduction Zone (with thanks):

"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".

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

Really, how so?

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

*Carefully selected sources, that convey the desired agenda of the composers of the Bible.

You agree that you're using the Bible to proven the Bible, then.

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

I addressed it directly and head on: Bring evidence and I'll believe it. Hell, bring evidence and I'll believe anything.

Until then, I've seen no indication that the laws of physics have ever been, or could be suspended in a way that I would call "magic."

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 am nothing like a person who cannot be persuaded by evidence, as I just pointed out.
Show me the evidence and I'll have no choice but to believe it. I've never met a YEC that would say that, have you?

ok what woudl count as evidence for magic?

I have no idea. You're the one making the claim, that's up to you to decide.

Maybe something indicating that the laws of physics were somehow suspended temporarily or something. I don't know. What I do know is that I need more than stories written in ancient books.

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

I agree that each alleged miracle has to be treated independently from the others.

• 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.

That's because we already know that the business of magicians is to create illusions that seem real to us. Despite this, there are actually people in existence who think magicians are doing real magic. What would you tell them if they told you that David Copperfield actually made the Statue of Liberty disappear? (David Copperfield once picked me out of a crowd and turned a piece of paper into an actual rose for me, in front of a huge crowd of people. I have no idea how he did it. And being as shy as I am, I was mortified lol.)

And I would argue that 3 is the most probable explanation for the resurrection.

I don't see how you could draw that conclusion, or demonstrate it. I mean, you really think the most probable conclusion is that a half human, half god died, and was bodily resurrected from the grave to ... where? Heaven? Where's that? Seems like a ton of assumptions are required to get there.

I don't see how that's more plausible than, humans are mistaken about things, which we know humans are prone to making all sorts of cognitive errors. And I don't see how it's more probable than someone just embellishing a story for whatever purposes, because we know human beings are prone to doing that as well.

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

Your bias is far stronger than mine.

I just don't believe it. I don't have a belief in it. I don't think it sounds plausible. I haven't seen sufficient evidence that convinces me that it's true.

You, on the other hand, wholeheartedly believe it, based off some old stories in a book. You can't interview any witnesses or examine any actual evidence to corroborate the stories told about it. You don't even really know who wrote these stories down in the first place. You have no evidence except for ancient stories of fantastical and miraculous claims that aren't known to even be possible.

You didn't answer my question about how to determine real magic from illusory magic.

 

[leroy]

It is up to those that claim magic exists to demonstrate that it does. Don't you understand this? You are trying to shift the burden of proof again.

I am not shifting any burden proof, I am simply point out the fact that if you have a bias against magic, then no evidence will ever be good enough for you



The evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and often much stronger) than the evidence for any other historical event that you would accept as true beyond reasonable doubt……… you just change the standards when the event contradicts your philosophical world view.

Then why do you believe the magic stories in the Bible?

I find the typical arguments for the existence of God, pretty strong………….this makes miracles (magic) probable and expected to happen every once in a while, this + the historical evidence…. makes the resurrection likely.

Once you accept the resurrection, it is easy to accept other miracles from in the gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not shifting any burden proof, I am simply point out the fact that if you have a bias against magic, then no evidence will ever be good enough for you

A bias against magic? Right away you admit to trying to shift the burden of proof with that ridiculous phrase.

The evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and often much stronger) than the evidence for any other historical event that you would accept as true beyond reasonable doubt……… you just change the standards when the event contradicts your philosophical world view.

Really? You only have one self contradictory source for that. And it is merely a collection of hearsay. You keep demonstrating that you do not understand evidence or history.

I find the typical arguments for the existence of God, pretty strong………….this makes miracles (magic) probable and expected to happen every once in a while, this + the historical evidence…. makes the resurrection likely.

Yes, but you keep demonstrating that you cannot reason rationally and consistently. And you have almost no historical evidence. The Bible is not a source of history.

Once you accept the resurrection, it is easy to accept other miracles from in the gospels.

LMAO! Once you reason irrationally once it is easy to do so again and again. I think that we can finally agree.

 

[leroy]

Explain what does the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
have to do with the historical evidence about Jesus Christ walk the earth a little over 2000
As I didn't make any mention about Genesis 6 day creation nor did I make any mention of the resurrection of Jesus Christ

What evidence can you give outside of the bible of the historical evidence of Jesus Christ walking the earth a little over 2000 years ago.
What evidence can you give inside the Bible to support the historical evidence of Jesus Christ walking the earth a little over 2000 years ago.

We have multiple independent early documents (inside and outside) the bible that confirm the existence of Jesus as a historical person

 

[leroy]

No, they became one source due to the process of competing sources being eliminated. I know, your superstitious beliefs will not allow you to understand this.


This is just another place where you have been shown to be wrong but cannot be honest enough with yourself to admit it.

Again

Paul and Mark didn’t copied from each other. ……… this is true, independently of any filtration

This is just another place where you have been shown to be wrong but cannot be honest enough with yourself to admit it.

There is a big difference between claiming that I was wrong, and showing that I was wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have multiple independent early documents (inside and outside) the bible that confirm the existence of Jesus as a historical person

You have one outside of the Bible. The rest deal with the beliefs of Christians.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not shifting any burden proof, I am simply point out the fact that if you have a bias against magic, then no evidence will ever be good enough for you



The evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and often much stronger) than the evidence for any other historical event that you would accept as true beyond reasonable doubt……… you just change the standards when the event contradicts your philosophical world view.




I find the typical arguments for the existence of God, pretty strong………….this makes miracles (magic) probable and expected to happen every once in a while, this + the historical evidence…. makes the resurrection likely.

Once you accept the resurrection, it is easy to accept other miracles from in the gospels.

Oh I agree. Once you resign yourself to accepting fantastical claims based on little-to-no evidence, it's much easier to believe all sorts of other fantastical claims! Is that supposed to be a good thing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again

Paul and Mark didn’t copied from each other. ……… this is true, independently of any filtration

Did they? Prove it. What scholars say that any such copying went both ways? In fact if you have a source that claims Mark was written by Mark that is probably not a scholar.

There is a big difference between claiming that I was wrong, and showing that I was wrong

One only needs to show that you failed to support any of your superstitious claims and half of the time you do that for us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

these Documents, (Mark Paul etc.) predate the bible. Originally, they were written as independent documents. The bible is not the source for these documents, but rather the other way around. Later, these documents where gathered, and someone decided to make a book out of these independent documents (the New Testament). it is still a fact that Paul and Mark didn’t copy from each other nor form a common source. Hence, they are independent, this is true regardless if other books were dropped or not.

You've already seen the rebuttal to this relating to the editing that came later in cobbling a Bible together. But even before that, even if Paul and Mark never met or compared notes, they were subjected to many of the same influences. Many of their thoughts were not original to them, but received teaching spread by word of mouth from believer to believer.

My ideas are very similar to many other RF posters whom I have never met or had any contact with before RF, but our thinking isn't independent. We have been subject to a common culture.

if you already have a bias against “magic” then any attempt to provide evidence fails by default.

The bias is against belief by faith, not magic. If magic can be shown to exist empirically, then the empiricist will provisionally accept that it does. Belief is ALWAYS tentative, that is, less than certitude.

ok what would count as evidence for magic?

Any evidence that is best explained as the suspension of the known laws of physics. If you put a spell on an ice cube preventing it from melting when it should, that would be evidence for magic. This is a similar answer to the question of what would be evidence of a god. Anything better explained by positing a supernatural intelligence. What would that be, you might ask. I might not have an answer. Maybe nothing at all could make supernaturalism seem more likely.

if the evidence changes, I can change my mind

I think you believe that, but I don't. You wrote, "The evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and often much stronger) than the evidence for any other historical event that you would accept as true beyond reasonable doubt……… you just change the standards when the event contradicts your philosophical world view."

But your belief isn't adequately supported by the evidence you cited subject to the laws of valid reason. You use different rules that vary case to case and always "support" your faith-based belief. Different evidence would result in the same conclusion - Jesus was resurrected. You might change your mind about some other conclusion such as that there were multiple independent witnesses to the resurrection, but if you're honest with yourself, you'll recognize that there is nothing at all that would make you stop believing that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. You will always supply your own rules to connect whatever evidence exists to you faith-based belief. And then you begin trying to connect your evidence and conclusions with fallacious argument rather than saying you choose to believe in resurrection even if insufficiently evidenced.

 

[leroy]

Addressed by @Subduction Zone (with thanks):

"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".


Really, how so?

*Carefully selected sources, that convey the desired agenda of the composers of the Bible.

You agree that you're using the Bible to proven the Bible, then.

I addressed it directly and head on: Bring evidence and I'll believe it. Hell, bring evidence and I'll believe anything.

Until then, I've seen no indication that the laws of physics have ever been, or could be suspended in a way that I would call "magic."

I am nothing like a person who cannot be persuaded by evidence, as I just pointed out.
Show me the evidence and I'll have no choice but to believe it. I've never met a YEC that would say that, have you?


I have no idea. You're the one making the claim, that's up to you to decide.

Maybe something indicating that the laws of physics were somehow suspended temporarily or something. I don't know. What I do know is that I need more than stories written in ancient books.

I agree that each alleged miracle has to be treated independently from the others.

That's because we already know that the business of magicians is to create illusions that seem real to us. Despite this, there are actually people in existence who think magicians are doing real magic. What would you tell them if they told you that David Copperfield actually made the Statue of Liberty disappear? (David Copperfield once picked me out of a crowd and turned a piece of paper into an actual rose for me, in front of a huge crowd of people. I have no idea how he did it. And being as shy as I am, I was mortified lol.)

I don't see how you could draw that conclusion, or demonstrate it. I mean, you really think the most probable conclusion is that a half human, half god died, and was bodily resurrected from the grave to ... where? Heaven? Where's that? Seems like a ton of assumptions are required to get there.

I don't see how that's more plausible than, humans are mistaken about things, which we know humans are prone to making all sorts of cognitive errors. And I don't see how it's more probable than someone just embellishing a story for whatever purposes, because we know human beings are prone to doing that as well.

Your bias is far stronger than mine.

I just don't believe it. I don't have a belief in it. I don't think it sounds plausible. I haven't seen sufficient evidence that convinces me that it's true.

You, on the other hand, wholeheartedly believe it, based off some old stories in a book. You can't interview any witnesses or examine any actual evidence to corroborate the stories told about it. You don't even really know who wrote these stories down in the first place. You have no evidence except for ancient stories of fantastical and miraculous claims that aren't known to even be possible.

You didn't answer my question about how to determine real magic from illusory magic.

The evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and usually stronger) that the evidence for any other event form ancient history that you would accept as a nearly certain historical fact

Specifically, if an event (like the resurrection) is attested in 2 or more independent sources, it will be considered a historical fact



If you have a bias against supernatural claims , then that would be a phislophophical issue, not a historical issue.

Addressed by @Subduction Zone (with thanks):

"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".

Repeating what he said is useless…………. As I said, Mark and Paul are independent sources regardless if your conspiracy theory is true or not

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and usually stronger) that the evidence for any other event form ancient history that you would accept as a nearly certain historical fact

Specifically, if an event (like the resurrection) is attested in 2 or more independent sources, it will be considered a historical fact



If you have a bias against supernatural claims , then that would be a phislophophical issue, not a historical issue.




Repeating what he said is useless…………. As I said, Mark and Paul are independent sources regardless if your conspiracy theory is true or not

You can claim that as much as you like, but that only demonstrates that you don't understand evidence when it comes to history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and usually stronger) that the evidence for any other event form ancient history that you would accept as a nearly certain historical fact

The evidence for a person coming back from the dead and bodily ascending to heaven is "strong" in your opinion?
Your standards of evidence are abysmal.

I'm sorry but your assertion that "evidence for the resurrection is as strong (and usually stronger) the evidence for any other event from ancient history that you would accept as a nearly certain historical fact" is ludicrous.

Specifically, if an event (like the resurrection) is attested in 2 or more independent sources, it will be considered a historical fact

On what planet?

If you have a bias against supernatural claims , then that would be a phislophophical issue, not a historical issue.

You addressed nothing I said in that post.

Repeating what he said is useless…………. As I said, Mark and Paul are independent sources regardless if your conspiracy theory is true or not

Nope.

 

[leroy]

Oh I agree. Once you resign yourself to accepting fantastical claims based on little-to-no evidence, it's much easier to believe all sorts of other fantastical claims! Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Why are you quoting my comment if you are not going to respond to that comment?

I said

1 The evidence for the resurection is as strong (and usually stronger) than the evidence for any fact form ancient history that you would accept

2 you have a bias against “magic”

Which point do you think is wrong ?

 

[Eli G]

Many atheists are just so indoctrinated that they cann't reason like to have a normal dialog with others about religious topics ... They are pre-programmed to repeat the same atheists dogmas again and again and again ...

Finding an atheist willing to have a rational dialogue on religious matters is like meeting a monotheistic Hindu.

 

[lukethethird]

Many atheists are just so indoctrinated that they cann't reason like to have a normal dialog with others about religious topics ... They are pre-programmed to repeat the same atheists dogmas again and again and again ...

Finding an atheist willing to have a rational dialogue on religious matters is like meeting a monotheistic Hindu.

Stop blaming atheists for your shortcomings, if you are going to believe a load of nonsense without justification then don't expect people with a thinking brain to take you seriously.

 

[Eli G]

Stop blaming atheists for your shortcomings, if you are going to believe a load of nonsense without justification then don't expect people with a thinking brain to take you seriously.

Calm down ... First, you, stop blaming Christians for your lack of reasoning.

 

[lukethethird]

Calm down ... First, you, stop blaming Christians for your lack of reasoning.

I am not the one making the unreasonable claims about invisible gods out there, if you want to believe in unsupported nonsense you are free to do so, it is your prerogative, better you than me.

 

[Augustus]

It's about the Roman Catholic church who went back and destroyed all temples from all pagan religions and also destroyed all material not in line with their canon.

Obviously my statement is somewhat hyperbole but the point remains. In the 4th century Rome Christianity took over Pagan temples and enacted all sorts of anti-pagan laws

It wasn’t hyperbole, just completely wrong.

I don't even understand the point of this new line of discussion?

You claimed that the lack of evidence for your position was because the super powerful church systematically destroyed it all.

I noted this was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of the church to do so, even the Emperor couldn’t have achieved this effectively.

I quoted some sources that supported my view, you kindly quoted some sources that showed you were wrong too.

Right, Christians loved pagans, they were one big happy family.

If you think that has any connection to anything I’ve said, you might want to try reading more carefully.

Let’s see if you can be a bit more nuanced from now on eh and respond with something resembling what i said?

Moving in with a new religion is still "destroying a temple".

Would you say it would be accurate for a future historian to talk about how in the 20th and 21st century atheists "destroyed" thousands of churches across Europe and America?

I’d say it would be a gross distortion to claim that converting former churches that were no longer economically viable into cafes and apartments constitutes destruction.

Even though Soviet communists did destroy churches deliberately, I’d also say jumbling up the deliberate destruction with the conversion of defunct churches would be pretty silly.

That’s what you are doing though.

Eventually Pagan temples were outlawed, making my statement completely correct.

It's not completely correct, as we shall see.

According to the sixth-century historian Procopius, the Isis temple of Philae in Byzantine Egypte was closed down officially in AD 537 by the local commander Narses the Persarmenian in accordance with an order of Byzantine emperor Justinian I.[49] This event is conventionally considered to mark the end of ancient Egyptian

Shall we see what your own source that you quoted says about this…

the religious transformation in the whole region, including Philae, consisted of a gradual and complex process that was essentially peaceful.15 The present project extends the picture of a complex and gradual process of religious transformation, in which religious violence only occasionally occurred in specific local or regional circumstances, to Egypt as a whole

And now shall we look at what it says in the sentences that follow directly from the end of your quote?

As it now becomes more and more accepted in Late Antique Studies to discard the triumphalist overtones of our Christian sources and to view religious transformation as a gradual and complex process, in which violence only rarely erupted, these cases have been re-evaluated. It has been argued that, if we take away the emphasis on violence and take proper account of the other sources available (inscriptions, papyri, and material remains), it becomes clear that all three incidents occurred in specific local, socio-political circumstances: the Serapeum incident arose from the explosive situation in the capital, perhaps induced but not necessarily directly related to the imperial edict of June 391, the anti-“pagan” rhetoric of Shenoute needs to be seen in the context of his power struggle with the local elite and the closure of the Isis temple at Philae was probably no more than a propaganda stunt of Justinian’s that would have had a minimal effect on a local level. We have also seen that in each case, the literary sources speak of a “destruction” of temples and idols, whereas in reality the violence was something less extreme.


Amazingly it says exactly the same thing I said in my previous post that contained the multiple peer reviewed sources you pretended not to notice.

As I already stated and the sources confirmed, there was violence at times, but localised, temporarily limited and ad hoc.

Paganism declined over many centuries, just as Christianity is in the process of doing now in Europe. While there were some persecutions (as there have been in modern Europe) most of the decline is organic due to new belief systems being in the ascendancy, and the decline of the institutional power of paganism.

This should be easy to understand as we can see the process happening today.

Yes, to think Christianity didn't actively attempt to end all pagan religions in Rome is strange?

That's a bit like making a blanket statement that "paganism actively tried to end Christianity and Manichaeism" because of the Diocletian persecution.

As your source showed, the truth is far more nuanced than the pop-culture narrative you are peddling.

Paganism declined over centuries and there was no systematic destruction of temples and heretical materials.

 

[joelr]

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

Not surprising when you have lots of apologists around looking to explain why they are correct.