There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[SkepticThinker]

I see you can't tell the difference, either.

Feel free to elucidate the difference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know that I also had cleary said in those exact words that he was at the right place and the right time.

But you also said more. You also claim that he was special. But your argument for that is that Jesus became famous. I say his name was made famous by attributing magic to him and a successful promotional campaign beginning with Paul and then later Constantine and his armies, Catholicism and the priesthood, crusaders, conquistadores, missionaries, and televangelists. This can be done using any number of people as one's starting place.

My only dispute with you is that you minimize him as only or just run-of-the-mill, just some ordinary holy man, and that makes no rational sense. There were lots of ordinary holy men at that right time and right place as Jesus was too, but how many of them got picked up and deified

This is not an argument for Jesus being outstanding among men when alive.

He had to have something that made his message stand out, whereas others did not.

No, he didn't.

If the symbol itself isn't factually true, then the meaning attached the symbol falls right along with it.

I don't know what that means.

The Jesus of faith is an actual Jesus as well. Faith actually exists inside of people, and actually has actual impact, influence and effects in their actual lives.

Yes, faith actually exists, but not necessarily the Jesus believed in by faith.

I cannot be clearer that I do not conflate the Jesus of faith with the Jesus of history.

Why are you telling me that?

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but you are clutching at straws. Try again. If you want a discussion and try to learn how you are wrong you need to be honest.

Sure, so quote my specific comment, expalin why is it a Straw and I will admit my mistake.

You still have to explain why is it impossible (literally your words) that the romans would have made a census in the client state of Judea. (given that census in client states where done by the romans)

As a summery the objections against the gospels that I have spotted are:

1 the gospels where not written by eye witnesses. (you never supported the assertion by the way)

2 the gospels had mistakes (only one unproven alleged mistake was quoted)

3 the gosples have magic

Ironically Josephus is guilty of all 3 points too…….so if you reject the gospels for those reasons, you should also reject your own sources. That you used to support your claims. (like the date of the census)

 

[leroy]

That is a bit much to manipulate. I can only give a sample.

The Rāmāyaṇa is the story of Rama an Avatar of Vishnu. But set in a real city - Mithila:

The Rāmāyaṇa is a Sanskrit epic from ancient India, one of the two important epics of Hinduism, known as the Itihasas, the other being the Mahābhārata. The epic, traditionally ascribed to the Maharishi Valmiki, narrates the life of Rama, a legendary prince of Ayodhya in the kingdom of Kosala.

The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India, Volume I

Internet Archive
https://ia902902.us.archive.org › VR-001-BK





Mahābhārata narrates the struggle between two groups of cousins in the Kurukshetra War, and the fates of the Kaurava and the Pāṇḍava princes and their successors.
The Mahabharata is an important source of information on the development of Hinduism between 400 bce and 200 ce and is regarded by Hindus as both a text about dharma (Hindu moral law) and a history (itihasa, literally “that's what happened”).


Krishna is in this epic and it is considered historical.

The Story of the Mahabharata

www.brown.edu

King lines are in the Puranic text,

The Puranic literature is encyclopedic, and it includes diverse topics such as cosmogony, cosmology, genealogies of gods, goddesses, kings, heroes, sages, and demigods, folk tales, pilgrimages, temples, medicine, astronomy, grammar, mineralogy, humor, love stories, as well as theology and philosophy.





The accepted chronology of ancient India is based on William Jones’s identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya, the first king of the Mauryan empire. This identification serves as the basis for determining the era of Buddha, the dates of the subsequent kings of Magadha and of other kingdoms of India. According to this chronology, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha around 315 BCE. However, the Puranas as well as Megasthenes’s account of the milieu he lived in present a compelling case for debunking this identification and associating Sandrocottus with Chandragupta I, the founder of the Imperial Guptas. According to the Puranas, Chandragupta Maurya was crowned in 1538 BCE, Ashoka was crowned in 1489 BCE, and Chandragupta I ascended the throne of Pataliputra around 315 BCE in time to be the monarch referred to as Sandrocottus when Megasthenes arrived in Pataliputra in 302 BCE. This essay presents the evidence for this Puranic chronology and aims to resolve other conundrums in Indian history, such as the age of Vikramaditya and Adi Sankara, with this revised timeline.”
The following verified information spurred me to search and arrive at a Kings List of India according to Puranas ans Tamil Classics.



1.Lord Rama’s Date of Birth, Marriage,Exile, Ramayana War.

2.Mahabharata War.

3.Agasthya’s crossing over to South through the Vindhyas.

4.Tamil Classics’s refernce to Tsunamis.

5.The ancestry of Tamil Cholas to Manu and of Pandyas antiquity.

6.The feeding of the armies of Kauravas and Pandavas by a Tamil King, Udiyan Neduncheralaathan.

7.The artifacts and archeological finds of the remnants of Sanatana Dharma throuhout the world.



And the Bhagavata reference to Satyavrata Manu leaving th south for the North because of a Tsunami.

Kings List India By Puranas Validated

Indians believe the Timeline of India’s History as explained by William Jones and his followers, though their theory on the dates assigned to events and persons have been proved to be incorre…

ramanisblog.in

Ramayana is an epic poem, so by the literary genera of the text, we know that the author was not even trying to report actual history, and the readers knew that they were not reading actual history. But rather a myth.

So for that reason the text is no analogues the gospels.

I don’t know if the Mahabarata has the same issue or not but my position stands

1 if the text was written by well-informed people

and

2 the authors had the intend to report what they thought really happen

Then the text is reliable (not perfect) but realible and should be taken as truth unless god reasons for the opposite are provided.

Quite frankly my position is almost a tautology obviously if the author is well informed and is “trying” to report the truth, then almost by definition the text has to be reliable.

 

[F1fan]

The Odyssey is also a mythical story of significant cultural importance, and it, too, is a mixture of historical facts about people, places and events, sny imagined people, places, and events. And as with all such ancient mythical stories, no one knows for sure exactly what parts are imagined and what parts are historical fact. But that doesn't make the story any less culturally significant, nor does it mean none of it is historically accurate if it's not all historically accurate. But to those who do not want it to be considered culturally important, any inaccuracy will provide them with the ecuse they want to claim that none of it is historically accurate. Even though the historical accuracy of a cultual myth is totally rrelevant to the importance of the myth, anyway.

And as you can see for yourself, there are many of those people posting here, right now.

Misdirection. We aren’t talking whether the Bible or Star Wars is culturally meaningful. We are talking about why meaning adopted and spread about Bible stories are that they are literally true. We observe a great deal of stress and division over interpretation and meanings, and there is hostility towards anyone pointing out serious problems with their assumptions and beliefs.

 

[dybmh]

Virgin. Some find the geneaology in Luke 3 gives her the Davidic family line which would be royal. Mother of God however is instant royalty status.

No. That's not how it worked back then. The bloodline of David is does not automatically convey royalty. Neither of the Jeroboams, Nadav, Baasha, Omri, Ahab are examples of royals who were not in the tribe of Judah. So the lineage does not make Mary royal.

And mary as mother of god, doesn't convey royalty either. She's just a concubine. You'd need something that describes her as God's bride or a queen.

In John he is King of the Jews. What Carrier might have been talking about in Matthew was the nativity scene where it is asked "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?".
But really, he's a king.

No. He's not a literal king. See, you just flip-flopped between literal to metaphorical? If Mary is *literally* the mother of God. Then Jesus is literally not a king.

Jesus confronts and defeats the temptations of the Devil (also known as the Adversary, and as a Serpent or Dragon and Prince of the World), in both cases before going to claim their kingdom. In earliest Christian tradition Satan is the power whom Jesus most decisively defeats so as to effect the salvation of the faithful ever after.

Those beasty names are not in the gospels. And Jesus does not defeat satan in any sort of battle. If satan were actually defeated, like a dragon or a giant in the other myths, satan would not continue to be problem in the story. There would be no demon possessions in the story after Matthew 4. This is stretching far beyond what was intended in the RR scale.

Nativity and a death threat. The period from 3-30 is left out.

Not in Luke it isn't.

This means a general flight, fleeing for one's life for some reason. Oedipus was taken away to hide by a shepard after being left to die of exposure.

No. that is reducing the precision again.



Here's what I found on that story you referenced:

​

The servant took the baby away, onto a hilltop, but he could not kill the innocent child. He left Oedipus instead with a shepherd, who brought him across the mountains to the king of Corinth. This king claimed the boy and raised him as his own.​

So, Oedipus was kidnapped, taken, and snatched away. "Sprited away" and given to someone else who raised him. Jesus was not kidnapped, snatched, and taken away, being raised by someone else. Again, the actual details and differences are ignored.

Those are not even close to obviously false? This is a general story-telling structure, not literal verbatim plot twists. It's a list about mythology.

As I showed you above, they are being stretched to the point of the RR scale not being the RR scale anymore. And the details about Oedipus are being ignored. and there's flipping and flopping between literal and metaphor.

As I demonstrated in a 3 part list that is only a part of how prior probability is determined, the argument is strong. Calling an agrument strong or not strong when you know almost NONE OF IT, is absurd. What's actually being exaggerated with conjecture is everything you are saying about RR and the mythicist thesis. As well as the Hellenistic roots of the NT.

No. All I said was IF, the RR is needed and the RR is being exaggerated, THEN the argument is weak. The RR is being exaggerated, obviously. And there's cherry picking of only 1 gospel. So, the question is, does the mythicist argument require the RR scale or not.

If not, why include it if it is exaggerating and chery picking? That's a question.

I called him an apologist because he's an apologist who makes apologist-y statements. His review was bizarre. re-link to it and I'll show you. He didn't read the book, thought RR was the main theme to the argument and more crank than I can remember.

Cool. I would very much like to see what elements in the review rendered that judgement.

Here's what I'm focused on:

"And so Carrier’s claim about Jesus getting a nearly perfect score seems to be simply false"

and here's the main point of the review:

"Is the scale useful for determining historicity?

It seems to me, in view of the evidence surveyed above, that the answer to this question is clearly “no.” The scale was not designed to determine historicity. Its folklorist users show little or no interest in the attempt to do what historians do, namely peeling back layers of myth in search of underlying history, if there is any. The Rank-Raglan scale does not seem, contrary to Carrier’s claim, to consistently fit figures who were definitely not historical better than ones who certainly were. And so Carrier’s attempt to use the scale to slant his calculations of probability in the direction of the non-historicity of Jesus are at best unpersuasive, and at worst deliberately misleading."

So, McGrath brought 2 arguments, both are valid. 1) The "nearly perfect score' is false. 2) The RR scale was not intended nor does it accomplish what Carrier wants to use it for, which is increasing the odds of non-historicity / a complete myth. The method for doing this is bringing many counter-examples.

And this leads to my question which is, why is the RR scale used at all? It brings more doubt than certainty.

Here's the link.

Rankled by Wrangling over Rank-Raglan Rankings: Jesus and the Mythic Hero Archetype | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

 

[dybmh]

How is it cherry picking if he says he found 14 in Mark and then says 19 in Matthew? RR has a very small part in the argument, I listed 3 groups of subjects expanded upon before discussing prior probability in the following chapter. RR was in the last group.

It's cherry picking if Luke is ignored. The entire gospel should be consulted. That's the entire story. Maybe excluding John as an later outlier. But there needs to be reasons for excluding the others and ONLY using Matthew.

If it's not that important, then that's the answer. Internet super-fans of the Jesus-myth-theory should emphasize other things. And Carrier probably shouldn't include it in his arguments / books unless it just filler material. And then when challenged on it, he should admit, "Yeah, that's really not that important, and its not a strong indicator anyway." Instead of "Burn in Hell you APPPPPOLOGISSSSSST".

The Romulus/Jesus death and resurrection narratives have 20 parallels as well. That is just one other thing.

And I wonder how closely those actually parallel. I wonder how many differences there are. What's the oldest source of the story you can provide for review?

It isn't rigid? West Side Story is Romeo and Juliet. Unless you go all rigid then it isn't. Oh Brother Where Art Thou is the Odyssey. But the story is done differently. Jesus is a king, not the King of Israel.

Not a king in anyway. Wanna-be-a-king is the proper description. West-side story and romeo and juliet is an archetype. There are many stories like it, because there were many actual "star-crossed lovers" and many actual family/tribal feuds. The Odyssey is an archetype, because there were many actual "heroic" journeys and many actual "rite-of-passage". Finding the common archetype in a story doesn't mean the story is fake.

He knows, and He is a great High Priest who can empathize with us. He is also the King who can do something about it. But He exercises His power in a different way than the worldly system. He will “rule with an iron scepter and dash them to pieces like pottery,” but only after extending His patience — for He is “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Well, you kind of have it right there: "He is also the King who can do something about it. But He exercises His power in a different way than the worldly system."

He's a King, BUT, not like the other kings. Not a worldly king. The RR scale is talking about a literal king. Jesus is not a literal king. The RR scale is about literally being born into royalty. Jesus is not literally born into royalty. The RR scale is talking about literally being kidnapped, snatched, and raised by another. Jesus was not literally spritied away. The RR scale is talking about a literal battle with a giant, beast, dragon, or king. Jesus does not literally battle any of these.

So, one could say, Gospel Jesus is not literally an almost perfect score on the RR scale. It's actually sub-10 out of 22. And if one is including the epistles, then the claim is not about the gospels. It's about a later myth, a myth written about what's in the gospels. And these later adaptations to actual people and actual events happens. That's one of the valid points McGrath makes.

 

[dybmh]

It's well documented these Mystery religions were only the nations the Greeks invaded and combined Hellenism with the local religion.
There are many sources that explain what the trends are and the the NT is part of this movement. I can give many of them.

Thank you. I remember watching one of the videos you posted about it. I can't remember the speaker's name, sadly. But I remember 9 points of comparison. And, like I said before to another poster, my objections depend on what is said and how it is said. I do remember thinking while I was watching the video, that at approx the same time in history, though, on the other side of the globe in china similar ideas were being developed. It's just human nature. That doesn't mean ideas were being derived one from another. It's just people being people.

Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth.

Yes, they're all different, but the dying/rising quest for eternal life is THE important aspect of the story and it's found across the globe from the levant.

Nezha - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So, the differences are ignored. AND. the similarites in distant cultures are ignored. So.... They can both be myths, but one is not derived from the other. And thats the same with th pagan myths of the Greeks and Romans. Maybe they were derived... maybe they were original.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, so quote my specific comment, expalin why is it a Straw and I will admit my mistake.

You still have to explain why is it impossible (literally your words) that the romans would have made a census in the client state of Judea. (given that census in client states where done by the romans)

As a summery the objections against the gospels that I have spotted are:

1 the gospels where not written by eye witnesses. (you never supported the assertion by the way)

2 the gospels had mistakes (only one unproven alleged mistake was quoted)

3 the gosples have magic

Ironically Josephus is guilty of all 3 points too…….so if you reject the gospels for those reasons, you should also reject your own sources. That you used to support your claims. (like the date of the census)

Where did I say "impossible"? And you do not understand, finding a barely possible alternative is not a refutation. Until you show that there is a good reason to consider that barely possible alternative you are still wrong until you come up with a reason better than " my beliefs would be mythical if you don't accept this far fetched excuse". Also explanations were given to you multiple times. If you did not understand that is your problem.

And the rest of your post is a refuted strawman. Try again.

 

[Thrillobyte]

It's cherry picking if Luke is ignored.

Please explain to us without any exaggeration where Luke, writing some 80 years later could possibly have gotten the story of Jesus in the Temple when he was 12. It would have happened roughly 8 CE if we take his birth year to be 4 BCE. Who would have been alive to transmit the story to Luke? All the teachers in there were old so they would have died way before Luke.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There was the religion OF Jesus of Nazareth. After he was gone a new religion ABOUT Jesus replaced his Gospel. This new religion, Christianity draws upon many existing beliefs. Also, it appears that Jesus deliberately patterned aspects of his life and teachings after those existing beliefs outside of Judaism so at to make the Jesus story more appealing to members of other religious beliefs and philosophy. Paul's version of Jesus was more "familiar" to his Pagan audience, hence more adaptable.
Jesus knew that his gospel was going to be rejected by the Israelites!

Jesus stated that the corrupted Jewish house (of worship) was abandoned by God - see Matthew 23:38
They shared in the community responsibility to bring Jesus to justice - Deuteronomy 21:1-9
Thus they were culpable blood guilty in God's eyes. - Acts 3:12-15

 

[dybmh]

Please explain to us without any exaggeration where Luke, writing some 80 years later could possibly have gotten the story of Jesus in the Temple when he was 12. It would have happened roughly 8 CE if we take his birth year to be 4 BCE. Who would have been alive to transmit the story to Luke? All the teachers in there were old so they would have died way before Luke.

And I already responded to this. Maybe it got wiped out during the server downtime.

If Luke is excluded for those reasons, Matthew should be excluded for those same reasons. That's why it's cherry picking.

 

[Colt]

121:8.8 3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master's life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the "grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as "the friend of publicans and sinners." He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul's death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the "Acts of the Apostles."

121:8.9 As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus' life as Paul had related it to him. Luke's Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus' life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark's Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador's narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew. UB 1955

IMOP

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I already responded to this. Maybe it got wiped out during the server downtime.

If Luke is excluded for those reasons, Matthew should be excluded for those same reasons. That's why it's cherry picking.

We know that one of the two is wrong in their dating. Luke's nativity myth has Jesus born in 6 CE, Matthew in roughly 4 BCE or even a bit earlier.

 

[Subduction Zone]

121:8.8 3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master's life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the "grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as "the friend of publicans and sinners." He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul's death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the "Acts of the Apostles."

121:8.9 As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus' life as Paul had related it to him. Luke's Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus' life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark's Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador's narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew. UB 1955

IMOP

Except that there is no good reason to assume that Luke was written by Luke.

 

[dybmh]

We know that one of the two is wrong in their dating. Luke's nativity myth has Jesus born in 6 CE, Matthew in roughly 4 BCE or even a bit earlier.

Or they're both wrong.

How do you propose choosing which one is more accurate? The metric given my @Thrillobyte was date of composition. And both books are written late. If the metric is realism ( what was proposed earlier ), they're both unrealistic.

So what appears to be happening is, the book with the highest score is chosen, and the others are tossed out. And the items on the scale are stetched beyond their intended useage. Being in the tribe of Judah in David's lineage doesn't make Mary royal. "Stand behind me satan" is not battling a giant or a dragon. All of these rankings are completely exaggerated. He wasn't a king at all. He was barely a hero in the story. Barely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or they're both wrong.

How do you propose choosing which one is more accurate? The metric given my @Thrillobyte was date of composition. And both books are written late. If the metric is realism ( what was proposed earlier ), they're both unrealistic.

So what appears to be happening is, the book with the highest score is chosen, and the others are tossed out. And the items on the scale are stetched beyond their intended useage. Being in the tribe of Judah in David's lineage doesn't make Mary royal. "Stand behind me satan" is not battling a giant or a dragon. All of these rankings are completely exaggerated. He wasn't a king at all. He was barely a hero in the story. Barely.

And I agree. That is probably the case. Luke's version has quite a few errors in it besides the dating of the census. He appears to want to have Jesus born in the "days of Herod". The story in Matthew is pretty far fetched too. But for the defenders of a literal interpretation of the Bible both cannot be right. But as you said, both can be wrong.

As to the ranking, that is not my argument. I know that is not the actual case, but for many, and this applies to all times, anyone that can claim to have some tie to royalty would be seen as being of "royal birth" in various myths. The fact that it does not go by real world standards does not mean that it does not meet mythological standards.

 

[leroy]

Where did I say "impossible"?

Luckily for you 2 days of comments where deleted in the thread (or perhaps the whole forum) so I can find your acctual words

But paraphrasing your words, you said that a census in Judea organized by the roman empire would have been as absurd as a census in Canada Organized by USA

Is this an accurate representation of what you said?

Do you admit that you where wrong? do you admit that unlike USA-CANADA Judea was a subordinate state?

so if romans made census in other client states, why was a census in judea so unlikely as you seem to belive?.-------- isent this a valid question?

And you do not understand, finding a barely possible alternative is not a refutation.

It is not a bare possibility, we have an author (Luke) who has been proven to be correct in most of the testable events that he describes ………. Who claims (indirectly) that the census was in 4BCE

The possibility that he is corrects roughly 50% given that we have another well informed author (josephus) who suggests a date of 6AC.

I see no reason for why we should trust Josephus more than Luke ………….. and I certainly don’t see any reason for why we should accept Josephus over Luke with the near 100% certainty that you seem to have.

" my beliefs would be mythical if you don't accept this far fetched excuse".

My believes wouldn’t be mythical, … just a specific irrelevant and secondary event would have to be corrected within my current “believes”

I accept that there is a good chance that Luke made a mistake,….. what I don’t grant is the near 100% certainty that you have……… you haven’t provided any evidence to justify your confidence.

Given that we have 2 authors proposing a different date, why not remaining agnostic and live the door open for both possibilities?

Also explanations were given to you multiple times. If you did not understand that is your problem.

And the rest of your post is a refuted strawman. Try again.

WELL then quote my specific words and explain why is that a straw man……….can you do that? obviously not, you are just trolling, you know that you are cornered,

You cant refute

1 that the gospels are correct in most of the events that they report

2 that Judea was a suborniate state in 4bce

3 that Josephus was not a witness, that he apeals to magic , that he made some mistakes

4 that census in client states where made by the romans

Etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luckily for you 2 days of comments where deleted in the thread (or perhaps the whole forum) so I can find your acctual words

But paraphrasing your words, you said that a census in Judea organized by the roman empire would have been as absurd as a census in Canada Organized by USA

Is this an accurate representation of what you said?

Do you admit that you where wrong? do you admit that unlike USA-CANADA Judea was a subordinate state?

so if romans made census in other client states, why was a census in judea so unlikely as you seem to belive?.-------- isent this a valid question?






It is not a bare possibility, we have an author (Luke) who has been proven to be correct in most of the testable events that he describes ………. Who claims (indirectly) that the census was in 4BCE

The possibility that he is corrects roughly 50% given that we have another well informed author (josephus) who suggests a date of 6AC.

I see no reason for why we should trust Josephus more than Luke ………….. and I certainly don’t see any reason for why we should accept Josephus over Luke with the near 100% certainty that you seem to have.

You said, and I quote "You still have to explain why is it impossible (literally your words)" Do you know what literally means? It appears that you do not.

And no, you have do not to claim a 50% chance of being wrong when it comes to two choices. Reality does not work that way. Last week I bought a lottery ticket. I have not checked the results yet. Since I either won or lost the odds of me winning are 50%. I will seel that to you at a bargain price. How about $1,000.00? I promised to do the same next week and send you that ticket too.

Do you really think that odds work in that fashion?

My believes wouldn’t be mythical, … just a specific irrelevant and secondary event would have to be corrected within my current “believes”

I accept that there is a good chance that Luke made a mistake,….. what I don’t grant is the near 100% certainty that you have……… you haven’t provided any evidence to justify your confidence.

Given that we have 2 authors proposing a different date, why not remaining agnostic and live the door open for both possibilities?

This has been explained to you more than once. The works of Josephus are not the only works on Quirinius. He would only have covered his time in Israel. Others covered his life elsewhere. We know where he was and when.

WELL then quote my specific words and explain why is that a straw man……….can you do that? obviously not, you are just trolling, you know that you are cornered,

You cant refute

1 that the gospels are correct in most of the events that they report

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, that fails because most of what they report are about Jesus and you have no way of verifying that. You do know that the three synoptic gospels can be seen as only one source. And there are indications that the others of John may have gotten parts from Mark as well. You have sources that copy each other and then tell different stories elsewhere. At best you can only call that one source. And a rather weak one at that.

2 that Judea was a suborniate state in 4bce

It was a client state. That means that it was self ruling. Do you need an article on the client states of Rome?

3 that Josephus was not a witness, that he apeals to magic , that he made some mistakes

Where did Josephus appeal to magic? I am unaware of that. And yes, he did make mistakes I am sure. How does that help you?

4 that census in client states where made by the romans

Etc.

There is no evidence of that. In fact the author of Luke did not appear to agree with that. Though he was rather confused at times.

Do you remember what the purpose of the census was?

 

[Colt]

Except that there is no good reason to assume that Luke was written by Luke.

No reason to think it wasn’t.