There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

But not from the myth score. Matthew is being chosen to be the example used for the myth ranking, and Luke is being excluded.

Okay. So he did not do one for Luke. I am sure that one could do the same for it and give it a myth ranking as well. What difference does that make? That would take more time but it would probably have a similar ranking. I do not see what difference it makes. He never claimed that either one was not mythical, he merely did the ranking for some of them.

 

[dybmh]

I have never seen anyone do that. So I am going to disagree. It is merely used to show how it has similarities to other myths. I think that you are taking many of these arguments too literally. I do not like to see either side described incorrectly. For example when people note many similarities between the starts of Christianity and that of Mithraism they are not claiming that it is the same. They do not say that was directly copied so differences do not sink the argument. Many myths borrow from older ones. They still have their own original claims, but one can quite often see shared elements. They may not have been copying others, but it does raise that question.

And, I have seen several huge exaggerations and misinterpretting historical data, which followed criticisms of others for exaggerating and misinterterpretting historical data. Below are a few examples of the exaggerations relating to equating Jesus with other myths. Not so much that they're both myths. But that the details are an exact match.

Jesus is no different from Mercury, Bacchus, Perseus and Hercules.

how his [ Jesus' ] life reads EXACTLY like the lives of a half dozen earlier mythical man gods

 

[YoursTrue]

Some sort of misplaced sarcasm,
about how you pretend to know things you
cannot possibly know.

Some things make sense to some, and some things do not make sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And, I have seen several huge exaggerations and misinterpretting historical data, which followed criticisms of others for exaggerating and misinterterpretting historical data. Below are a few examples of the exaggerations relating to equating Jesus with other myths. Not so much that they're both myths. But that the details are an exact match.

There was no claim that they were an exact match. Did you not notice the word "like"? I think that you are reading his posts with an agenda in mind. You are strawmanning his arguments. Even the phrase "EXACTLY like" would mean that they would have the same elements. Not that they would have the same story.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why wouldn't it invalidate all the story, after all it is a narrative with a storied plot line, what other storied plotlines with obvious fictions are otherwise considered factual stories, I am not aware of any?

It would be beyond reason to think or believe that the thread or message of the Bible after the centuries of writing the history is not reliable.

 

[dybmh]

Okay. So he did not do one for Luke. I am sure that one could do the same for it and give it a myth ranking as well. What difference does that make? That would take more time but it would probably have a similar ranking. I do not see what difference it makes. He never claimed that either one was not mythical, he merely did the ranking for some of them.

All the items on the RR scale are being grossly exaggerated. And one of the items on the list is due to Luke being excluded. So excluding Luke isn't a big deal. It was one thing I mentioned along with the other exaggerations. That one thing is what was singled out for comment by @Thrillobyte. So that one thing is what is being discussed.

It's not that the gospels are or are not a myth, it's criticising others and then turning around and doing the exact same thing. There's plenty of valid criticisms that have been said in this thread. Not just about Christianity, but also a few about Judaism. My only gripe is the hypocrisy of the criticisms and the lack of accuracy coming from a PHD scholar.

 

[dybmh]

There was no claim that they were an exact match. Did you not notice the word "like"? I think that you are reading his posts with an agenda in mind. You are strawmanning his arguments. Even the phrase "EXACTLY like" would mean that they would have the same elements. Not that they would have the same story.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I feel good about understanding the meaning of what was said.

 

[YoursTrue]

'Right' that ' science' can't make dead brains alive.
In the Bible Jesus demonstrated that he can make dead brains alive again such as when he resurrected a 4-day dead person in John chapter 11.

lol, I wonder if scientists are investigating Einstein's brain which apparently is in a container.

 

[F1fan]

And what is your source for that date? That appears to be as fictitious as any other. Oh wat. I see the probably answer in your next post. An even more unreliable source than that Bible was used. The Urantia Book appears to be just the writings of early 20th century Americans that would have had no clue at all as to what actually happened. At least the believers in the Bible can pretend that they are following people of that time:

The Urantia Book - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have a copy, it's over 2000 pages. I have not read the whole thing, but I have read bits, and it includes descriptions of other beings on other planets, and these are described. As I recall there are blue beings, and grey beings, other colors. It really lost me on these types of sections. It goes into massive detail, and no way to verify any of it. There are no facts, no revealed science (pity), all claims.

 

[F1fan]

Some things make sense to some, and some things do not make sense.

Much of that is explained by education levels. And if a person holds non-factual beliefs that contradict knowledge.

 

[YoursTrue]

All the items on the RR scale are being grossly exaggerated. And one of the items on the list is due to Luke being excluded. So excluding Luke isn't a big deal. It was one thing I mentioned along with the other exaggerations. That one thing is what was singled out for comment by @Thrillobyte. So that one thing is what is being discussed.

It's not that the gospels are or are not a myth, it's criticising others and then turning around and doing the exact same thing. There's plenty of valid criticisms that have been said in this thread. Not just about Christianity, but also a few about Judaism. My only gripe is the hypocrisy of the criticisms and the lack of accuracy coming from a PHD scholar.

I've been trying to figure out about Athena, reading about the history a little bit. While I read that she might have been considered the patron goddess of the city, I wonder if there are any written documents claiming she spoke through anyone.

 

[YoursTrue]

Uhh

The Bible has a story in it.
All that's demonstrated is that some people
will believe anything.

what I find interesting is that it also records the reactions of detractors.

 

[Colt]

[/QUOTE]

You consider "celestial" beings to be a credible source for your information?

Yes.

 

[F1fan]

Yes.

Try that in court.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what I find interesting is that it also records the reactions of detractors.

So what? Do you think that other religions do not have the same? Being religious does not make a person an idiot. Even back then there were people that saw through the stories a long long time ago. And the people in various religions had to come up with a defense to those reactions.

 

[lukethethird]

It would be beyond reason to think or believe that the thread or message of the Bible after the centuries of writing the history is not reliable.

Then you can answer my question, what other storied plotlines with obvious fictions are otherwise considered factual stories? I know you can't name any but I ask just the same.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you can answer my question, what other storied plotlines with obvious fictions are otherwise considered factual stories? I know you can't name any but I ask just the same.

I can't answer the question because (1) I don't believe the Bible is fiction, and (2) the question you ask doesn't make sense. Now. To me.

 

[lukethethird]

But not from the myth score. Matthew is being chosen to be the example used for the myth ranking, and Luke is being excluded.

Matthew and Luke copied most of Mark, they both added their own birth stories, Mark does not have one, they added some sayings otherwise they are reliant on Mark's plotline so a ranking of any of the gospels would be much the same.

 

[YoursTrue]

Matthew and Luke copied most of Mark, they both added their own birth stories, Mark does not have one, they added some sayings otherwise they are reliant on Mark's plotline so a ranking of any of the gospels would be much the same.

It's amazing how critics can make up things. The fact that Mark's account is not a copy of Matthew's or Luke's account only adds to its veracity.

 

[lukethethird]

I can't answer the question because (1) I don't believe the Bible is fiction, and (2) the question you ask doesn't make sense. Now. To me.

Of course the question doesn't make sense because the answer would contradict itself. Dead bodies climbing out of their broken tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many is fiction as is the entire story. We don't claim history from fictional stories, that is for religious believers to claim which is why they have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to their historical claims as it pertains to The Bible. None, as in zero, and please don't pull out the real names and places card, most fictional accounts are set on earth in real places and in real time among real rulers and real buildings.