There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Mark Charles Compton]

I don't think they are. Their propensity it seems to me is to run away from facts like 1. there is no historical evidence for Jesus 2. the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses 3. the Bible is riddled with serious flaws that no God would allow to happen who wanted people to believe his son was the savior of mankind.

What's your response to these three facts?

Precisely! They cherry pick or intentionally omit incomplete pieces of information or context in order to support a weak or biased position. They also use strawman and ad hominin arguments to attempt to deflate opposing positions.

¹There is evidence, records of trial I think. Regarding him being a deity, such a claim is unfalsifiable, why waste time arguing it? Accept or don't.
²Alright. Does this mean they weren't accurate to the original version of the stories relayed in the gospels. What does it change either way?
³Sounds like personal conjecture from biases. Perhaps some God would allow what you perceive as flaws in their book, there are also accuracies.

Interesting 'facts' you have run towards me with, not sure you know what that word means.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Precisely! They cherry pick or intentionally omit incomplete pieces of information or context in order to support a weak or biased position. They also use strawman and ad hominin arguments to attempt to deflate opposing positions.

¹There is evidence, records of trial I think. Regarding him being a deity, such a claim is unfalsifiable, why waste time arguing it? Accept or don't.
²Alright. Does this mean they weren't accurate to the original version of the stories relayed in the gospels. What does it change either way?
³Sounds like personal conjecture from biases. Perhaps some God would allow what you perceive as flaws in their book, there are also accuracies.

Interesting 'facts' you have run towards me with, not sure you know what that word means.

I have researched the historicity of Jesus and I can assure you there is no historical record outside the Bible of a Jesus of Nazareth, certainly not any transcripts of a trial of a Jesus of Nazareth. If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What in the heck do you mean "Does this mean they weren't accurate to the original version of the stories relayed in the gospels"? If we don't have any autographs (originals) and if the first complete copies don't start showing up until 325 CE then how would we begin to know what the originals said? Mark, you seen like a nice guy but you don't really know what you are talking about. As for the contradictions here have a look at this:

50,000 Errors and Biblical contradictions​

50,000 Errors and Biblical contradictions

If the Bible was divinely inspired, then why would it have so many really obvious contradictions?

www.ghanaweb.com

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

What in the heck do you mean "Does this mean they weren't accurate to the original version of the stories relayed in the gospels"? If we don't have any autographs (originals) and if the first complete copies don't start showing up until 325 CE then how would we begin to know what the originals said? Mark, you seen like a nice guy but you don't really know what you are talking about.

Regarding how we would know if they were accurate to the originals?

Well that's simple, many of the stories in the bible can be traced back to more ancient religious traditions. Keep in mind the practice of oral tradition to pass knowledge through mythical stories is nothing new to our species, writing and written language were developed much more recently.

As for the contradictions here have a look at this:

50,000 Errors and Biblical contradictions​

50,000 Errors and Biblical contradictions

If the Bible was divinely inspired, then why would it have so many really obvious contradictions?

www.ghanaweb.com

Oof, that source appears to be an opinion piece and is itself full of contradiction and misrepresentation.

I've read the book cover to cover several times and while there are some contradictions due to the ambiguous nature of an all-powerful force that is both all loving and jealous called God, they number at most in the dozens.

The fact that you posted that op piece, makes me doubt that you ever even picked up, let alone read the book you're disparaging. Or perhaps you just linked a source you did not first review?

I have researched the historicity of Jesus and I can assure you there is no historical record outside the Bible of a Jesus of Nazareth, certainly not any transcripts of a trial of a Jesus of Nazareth. If there were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I prefer more objectively accepted sources but cannot and will not pay a subscription fee for access to actual academic journal entries thus:

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to disagree with it, that's up to you, but the scholarly consensus is that Jesus of Galilee did in fact exist, and was executed. The facts are less agreed upon after that, such as him being a teacher or preacher and what not.

...Of course, I would have to see a miracle first, before I believed they existed either in the past or the present.

 

[lukethethird]

Regarding how we would know if they were accurate to the originals?

Well that's simple, many of the stories in the bible can be traced back to more ancient religious traditions. Keep in mind the practice of oral tradition to pass knowledge through mythical stories is nothing new to our species, writing and written language were developed much more recently.



Oof, that source appears to be an opinion piece and is itself full of contradiction and misrepresentation.

I've read the book cover to cover several times and while there are some contradictions due to the ambiguous nature of an all-powerful force that is both all loving and jealous called God, they number at most in the dozens.

The fact that you posted that op piece, makes me doubt that you ever even picked up, let alone read the book you're disparaging. Or perhaps you just linked a source you did not first review?



I prefer more objectively accepted sources but cannot and will not pay a subscription fee for access to actual academic journal entries thus:

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to disagree with it, that's up to you, but the scholarly consensus is that Jesus of Galilee did in fact exist, and was executed. The facts are less agreed upon after that, such as him being a teacher or preacher and what not.

...Of course, I would have to see a miracle first, before I believed they existed either in the past or the present.

That historicity of Jesus article in wiki you provided reads like an echo chamber of what Christian scholars believe. It's void of reason, they're simply maintaining the faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regarding how we would know if they were accurate to the originals?

Well that's simple, many of the stories in the bible can be traced back to more ancient religious traditions. Keep in mind the practice of oral tradition to pass knowledge through mythical stories is nothing new to our species, writing and written language were developed much more recently.



Oof, that source appears to be an opinion piece and is itself full of contradiction and misrepresentation.

I've read the book cover to cover several times and while there are some contradictions due to the ambiguous nature of an all-powerful force that is both all loving and jealous called God, they number at most in the dozens.

The fact that you posted that op piece, makes me doubt that you ever even picked up, let alone read the book you're disparaging. Or perhaps you just linked a source you did not first review?



I prefer more objectively accepted sources but cannot and will not pay a subscription fee for access to actual academic journal entries thus:

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to disagree with it, that's up to you, but the scholarly consensus is that Jesus of Galilee did in fact exist, and was executed. The facts are less agreed upon after that, such as him being a teacher or preacher and what not.

...Of course, I would have to see a miracle first, before I believed they existed either in the past or the present.

Fifty thousand may be a bit on the high side, but here is a graphical version of self contradictions in the Bible. Click on any line. And remember, excuses are not refutations:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

A beautiful and interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other negative aspects of the Bible

philb61.github.io

It also has some of the other flaws of the Bible pointed out. Calling the entire Bible the "word of God" is nothing short of blasphemy.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Fifty thousand may be a bit on the high side, but here is a graphical version of self contradictions in the Bible. Click on any line. And remember, excuses are not refutations:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

A beautiful and interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other negative aspects of the Bible

philb61.github.io

It also has some of the other flaws of the Bible pointed out. Calling the entire Bible the "word of God" is nothing short of blasphemy.

This source seems to just list: A bunch of times God ≠ good. It depicts the many ways in historical times that humans ≠ good. It also claims allegorical tales of giant dragons and serpents is not science.

The only contradiction I see here, is the claim that God can only be good. That isn't a gazillion, it's one. It's also why you don't allow tyrannical monarchs with a room full of scribes rewrite the religious scriptures.

If you consider God is supposed to be all pervading, alpha omega, timeless, yada yada... He can't only be good, for you can't be everything without being evil as well, correct?

contradiction

1. the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very…

dictionary.cambridge.org

That historicity of Jesus article in wiki you provided reads like an echo chamber of what Christian scholars believe. It's void of reason, they're simply maintaining the faith.

Well, it is in agreeance of secular scholars. Again, if you gentlemen wish to disagree with general scholarly consensus, that is your choice brothers. You may be correct and they and myself wrong. I'm pretty sure it's just probability and likelihood that we are standing on, I don't know if they have any concrete evidence, I haven't seen it myself.



It's really a moot point, if one looked into the true roots of these myths and legends of yore. This was just one of many heroes with different names, but similar myths attached to them. Similarities of traits and trials shared between them. Did any of them actually accomplish anything the lore would imply?

Conjecture: Probably not, but they were great men who inspired others to stand up against the tyranny or oppression they faced. This gave them admiration, and very likely legendary feats that no ordinary man could dream.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This source seems to just list: A bunch of times God ≠ good. It depicts the many ways in historical times that humans ≠ good. It also claims allegorical tales of giant dragons and serpents is not science.

The only contradiction I see here, is the claim that God can only be good. That isn't a gazillion, it's one. It's also why you don't allow tyrannical monarchs with a room full of scribes rewrite the religious scriptures.

If you consider God is supposed to be all pervading, alpha omega, timeless, yada yada... He can't only be good, for you can't be everything without being evil as well, correct?

Then you either did not check out that link or did not understand it. It has quite a few verses that contradict other Bible verses. You could not even use the weak attempt of making excuses. You merely claimed to be blind.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Then you either did not check out that link or did not understand it. It has quite a few verses that contradict other Bible verses. You could not even use the weak attempt of making excuses. You merely claimed to be blind.

Ah, so you have to scroll down to the bottom where the 'complete list' is, because the interactive part of the website sends me to a bad url.

I only checked two of them, I'll just use them as an example, so we aren't here all day as this books stories are convoluted to say the least:

How many sons did Abraham have?

philb61.github.io

Question: How many sons did Abe have? First was Ishmael born to a slave woman. But it was his second born, Isaac, that God promised to Sara would be "born of spirit" and was considered Abraham's true heir. Sara made Abraham banish his wife Hagar who bore his firstborn son that no longer gets named at this point in the story. It is then confirmed by God that Ishmael is still Abe's offspring, so gets a foreign land as inheritance...
Answer: One 'rightful' heir of many sons. Ishmael is disowned by Abraham, but God gives him an inheritance recognizes him as the seed of Abe?

How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

philb61.github.io

Question: How many men did David's soldiers kill? This one is a proper contradiction if you ask me.
However, if you look at pretty much any battle in history, each side has a different number of slain. This is actually a fairly close discrepancy compared to some of the battles I've learned about.
Answer: Agree that it's a contradiction.

In conclusion: What does this get us or tell us? Does the story change? I reiterate a previous comment of mine, that the book definitely has plenty of contradictions, dozens even. It's a long and convoluted read full of repetition and allegory. If we consider this to mean the book to be entirely in error, it's my opinion that we've merely made the mistake of using the 'fallacy of composition', logical fallacy.

Those who take the book as literal and believe God would never allow literary errors or blatant lies within it... I don't know, you can't win em' all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, he is merely not arguing that miracles are impossible.

Yes. Just to clarify again, this is not to say that I think miracles can happen. They may well be impossible but that this fact is unknown to me, and I don't call anything impossible unless I know it to be that, and what other word can I use to mean not known to be impossible but possible? Yet I recognize that the word applies both to things that we know can happen and to things that may in fact be impossible, which creates this present problem - what does he mean by miracles are possible? I think Leroy wants it to mean that I believe that the laws of physics can be suspended. I don't.

No, the "criteria of embarrassment" only shows that people trying to defend the Gospels do not even have a clue as to what makes a good story.

The phrase makes me think of the creation and flood myths, each of which describe a compromised deity. Why did this deity need six days to do what should have been done in the blink of an eye if possible, and why did it need to rest? The flood myth depicts a morally and intellectually challenged deity who blames man and drowns all terrestrial life due to its own engineering deficiencies which it regrets despite being tri-omni, and then repopulates the earth with the same defective breeding stock. It's the "criteria of embarrassment" considerations that force me to ask why they did that.

And I have putative answers. What would motivate the creation of the work week and the weekend? Who benefits from the advent of the work week with a weekend free from labor? Suggested answer: the priesthood and the collection plate, a consequence of settling in large communities with a central synagogue that people need to travel to rather than wandering as nomads, to pay them rather than just feed them, and to build and maintain the synagogue, none of which would be relevant to nomadic peoples.

What would motivate people to create and tell the flood story? Suggested answer: the discovery of marine fossils on the highest mountain tops.

Yes an illusion is a possibility among any others............. the question is amoung all the possibilities , which is the best explanation. I would argue that “a real resurrection” is a better explanation for the evidence that “illusions” if you disagree we can have a discussion on that……….. such that you try show that Illusions are a better explanation than “a real resurection” and do the opposite, (each accepting his part of the burden proof)

But you didn't argue. You claimed. You claimed that resurrection was more likely than other explanations, but gave no reason why this should be the case. This gets back to possible. We know that fraud and errors occur, but not that miracles, which may be impossible, do. That immediately drops miracle to less likely. It also violates Occam's parsimony principle, since it requires extra conditions to explain what is explainable without them.

Nobody would like to pay more. Or at least it is unlikely

Agreed. You seem to think that the tax cheat example supports your position. You realize, I hope, that he is hoping to pay fewer taxes when he lies like that.

If Paul would have been liar and make things up, he would have had described the messiah such that he fits perfectly with the OT and messianic expectations.

Why? Who is going to believe that somebody fitting that description was recently crucified? It's a pretty detailed description. They changed Jesus in ways that couldn't be ruled out - miracles - but did not describe him as a literal king, conqueror, and world unifier and peacemaker. It's not hard to imagine why. The argument that there is only one interpretation of these facts - that the miracles must have happened - is flawed.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, it is in agreeance of secular scholars. Again, if you gentlemen wish to disagree with general scholarly consensus, that is your choice brothers. You may be correct and they and myself wrong. I'm pretty sure it's just probability and likelihood that we are standing on, I don't know if they have any concrete evidence, I haven't seen it myself.

You haven't seen the evidence because it is never provided, it's just biblical scholars in an echo chamber declaring their faith. It has come to be expected of biblical scholars. A general scholarly consensus or a literary scholarly consensus might be at odds with a biblical scholarly consensus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, so you have to scroll down to the bottom where the 'complete list' is, because the interactive part of the website sends me to a bad url.

Yes, some of them do not work. The original website disappeared for a while and this one does not work as well as the original. I still found far more that worked than did not. I just became aware of that. But each of those connected various verses that were on two different sides of a particular claim.

I only checked two of them, I'll just use them as an example, so we aren't here all day as this books stories are convoluted to say the least:

How many sons did Abraham have?

philb61.github.io

Question: How many sons did Abe have? First was Ishmael born to a slave woman. But it was his second born, Isaac, that God promised to Sara would be "born of spirit" and was considered Abraham's true heir. Sara made Abraham banish his wife Hagar who bore his firstborn son that no longer gets named at this point in the story. It is then confirmed by God that Ishmael is still Abe's offspring, so gets a foreign land as inheritance...
Answer: One 'rightful' heir of many sons. Ishmael is disowned by Abraham, but God gives him an inheritance recognizes him as the seed of Abe?

Apologetics are weak excuses, they are not refutations.

Here is an easy one. When does the Gospel of Luke have the birth of Jesus? When does the Gospel of Matthew have the birth of Jesus? And are you aware that there is the totally unjustified two different lines of decent for Jesus? These two are honesty tests. If you cannot admit to clear contradiction there then you lose.

In fact if one does a parallel reading of the Gospels one finds quite a few contradictions.

How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

philb61.github.io

Question: How many men did David's soldiers kill? This one is a proper contradiction if you ask me.
However, if you look at pretty much any battle in history, each side has a different number of slain. This is actually a fairly close discrepancy compared to some of the battles I've learned about.
Answer: Agree that it's a contradiction.

Okay, yes there will be contradictions. The reason for this is that though there is a very good chance that there was a King David that is also some "George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac" if not outright "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" in his biblical "history".

In conclusion: What does this get us or tell us? Does the story change? I reiterate a previous comment of mine, that the book definitely has plenty of contradictions, dozens even. It's a long and convoluted read full of repetition and allegory. If we consider this to mean the book to be entirely in error, it's my opinion that we've merely made the mistake of using the 'fallacy of composition', logical fallacy.

Those who take the book as literal and believe God would never allow literary errors or blatant lies within it... I don't know, you can't win em' all.

Some do. It depends on how important the details are. For example this is not a biblical contradiction, we know that the Adam and Eve story, the Noah's Ark story, and the Moses story never happened anywhere near to what was written in the Bible. There never were only two people. There never was a worldwide flood and the population never got down to eight people. And there was never a mass Exodus from Egypt.

 

[leroy]

You really have no clue? Then you should not be using that argument. I already explained that to you in that post. Once again, a miracle is something with odds so unlikely that an rational explanation, no matter how weak, beats it. One does not need a numerical value for that.

Well not granted, support your claim, support the claim that “miracles are so unlikely that *any* rational explanation is better”………. How do you know that?



Just kidding nobody expects you to support your claim

And strike three and you are out. Remember, you need to act like an honest interlocutor. If you cannot do so simply do not respond.

All I said was that any intrinsic low probability can be trumped with evidence, ………. This claim is ovbsoilusy and uncontrovertibly true……..

So what? That is just the spiderman argument. The "verifiable claims" about him are extraordinarily mundane.

So what?................ why did you asked me to support my cliam ………. If at the end of the day is irrelevant for you?

Just a brief summery so that you can notice your own intellectual dishonesty

1 I claimed that most of the verifiable facts in the gospels are true

2 you asked me to support the claim

3 I supported the claim

4 you reply by saying “so what”

Please get serous you act like a 12yo

I never did. You are now using a strawman argument. He gave a date and an explanation. That actually makes him more reliable than Luke because the explanation that Luke gave was bogus. And that was explained to you. So actually in this case Josephus was more reliable. Once again, we know the earliest when that census could have taken place. That was explained to you. And that did not rely solely on Josephus. Josephus only explained what was happening from a Jewish perspective. Some Jews rebelled against that census. Do not make the mistake of assuming that the only historian from that time was Josephus, He is trusted when it comes to history because his accounts matched those of others at his time. We do not see that with the author of Luke.

Aja, more pathetic

So will you ever provide those “extra sources” that confirm the date at 6AC? Will you ever explain why is a 6AC date more likely than 4BC?

That was explained to you.

You “explained” that 4 BCE Judea was a client state and therefore a census woudl have not been posible.

Then I refuted your claim by showing that romans made census in client states too…..then you ignored my response and simply reply with “Leroy debate properly blabla bla “

Pathetic 12yo attitude from your part

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well not granted, support your claim, support the claim that “miracles are so unlikely that *any* rational explanation is better”………. How do you know that?



Just kidding nobody expects you to support your claim

I will gladly do so proving that you admit that you have no cluse as to what a miracle is. When you do not even understand the terms that you use and are caught either being dishonest or not understanding your terms then the onus lies upon you. I should not have to define what a miracle is. If you use the term you should understand its meaning.

All I said was that any intrinsic low probability can be trumped with evidence, ………. This claim is ovbsoilusy and uncontrovertibly true……..

That is true. Too bad there is no evidence for your beleifs.

So what?................ why did you asked me to support my cliam ………. If at the end of the day is irrelevant for you?

Just a brief summery so that you can notice your own intellectual dishonesty

1 I claimed that most of the verifiable facts in the gospels are true

2 you asked me to support the claim

3 I supported the claim

4 you reply by saying “so what”

Please get serous you act like a 12yo

Oh my!!! Such projection. You are repeatedly caught debating like a child and then you accuse others of that. If you want to be taken seriously you cannot make such laughable false charges.


And yes, you claimed that most of the "verifiable facts" about the Bible are true. But all of those "facts" were inconsequential. It really does not matter what the names of characters are in a story. The problem is that there are more serious "verifiable facts" that are wrong or self contradicting which means that at leas t one of them is seriously wrong.. Such as the date of Jesus's birth. The day of the crucifixion. The details of the event, the most important part of the Bible should be unified, but they cannot even agree on the day that it happened.

Aja, more pathetic

So will you ever provide those “extra sources” that confirm the date at 6AC? Will you ever explain why is a 6AC date more likely than 4BC?

Been there done that. The history of Quirinius does not rely solely on Josephus. Though you do not understand it a census could not have occurred until after Rome took over, the reason for the census is well known.

You “explained” that 4 BCE Judea was a client state and therefore a census woudl have not been posible.

Then I refuted your claim by showing that romans made census in client states too…..then you ignored my response and simply reply with “Leroy debate properly blabla bla “

Pathetic 12yo attitude from your part

You made a bogus claim that was not supported by history. Remember, apologists are just Liars for Jesus. They are not historians. You did not find any sources for that that were based on history. Only apologetics. That is an automatic loss on your part.

And please, ease up on the projection. You have been making the 12 year old arguments. Just because you lost the debate is not a good excuse to get mad. The best "revenge" would be to find reliable sources that support your claims.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Regarding how we would know if they were accurate to the originals?

Well that's simple, many of the stories in the bible can be traced back to more ancient religious traditions. Keep in mind the practice of oral tradition to pass knowledge through mythical stories is nothing new to our species, writing and written language were developed much more recently.



Oof, that source appears to be an opinion piece and is itself full of contradiction and misrepresentation.

I've read the book cover to cover several times and while there are some contradictions due to the ambiguous nature of an all-powerful force that is both all loving and jealous called God, they number at most in the dozens.

The fact that you posted that op piece, makes me doubt that you ever even picked up, let alone read the book you're disparaging. Or perhaps you just linked a source you did not first review?



I prefer more objectively accepted sources but cannot and will not pay a subscription fee for access to actual academic journal entries thus:

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to disagree with it, that's up to you, but the scholarly consensus is that Jesus of Galilee did in fact exist, and was executed. The facts are less agreed upon after that, such as him being a teacher or preacher and what not.

...Of course, I would have to see a miracle first, before I believed they existed either in the past or the present.

So please show us the gospel of Mark traced back to its original version.

Re the contradictions you don't have to read the opinions. Just read the contradictions. Such as

"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Exodus 33:11

And

“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

But

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

Or this:

“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20

But

“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

So in the first second Jacob and Moses saw God but in the third no one has seen God.

And Ezekiel says sons won't be punished for the sins of their fathers but Exodus says they will.

I mean come on, Mark do I really have to be pointing out this stuff to you??????

 

[leroy]

LOL!! As usual it is the other way around. If you understood it you would see how bogus it is. You are once again relying on confirmation bias.

Because a literate person will have read quite a bit of fiction. They will know that there is nothing more boring than an invincible hero. We do not see stories of truly invincible heroes lasting the millennia. The best stories have the hero almost failing. In fact often apparently failing, and then somehow overcoming that right at the end. We see it with Harry Potter, We see it with the Jesus story. We see it with Hercules and just about any other great mythic figure. All of those characters had traits which would mee the standard of the argument from embarrassment. The only thing that is embarrassing about that is the argument itself.

That is the issue, form your words is obvious that you dont understand the criteria of embarrassment,

And you don’t seem interested in learning.

This criteria simply establishes that someone is would not lie (or is unlikely to lie), if this lie goes against ones purpose.

If someone is lying and making up a messiah, this person is unlikely to invent details that go against messianic expectation from the Old Testament and rabbinic texts.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Here is an easy one. When does the Gospel of Luke have the birth of Jesus? When does the Gospel of Matthew have the birth of Jesus?

As I am uncertain what you are asking, I gave the LLM that Bing uses your questions regarding the birth of Jesus, here is what was replied:
(which I thought was cute and chuckled)

"According to the Bible Gateway1, the Gospel of Luke has the birth of Jesus in chapter 2, verses 1-20. The Gospel of Matthew also has the birth of Jesus in chapter 22."

In the time of Herod and in the time of David which were separated by a millennium? Is that what you're asking?

And are you aware that there is the totally unjustified two different lines of decent for Jesus?

Again, I am assuming to what you are inferring. Jesus is the son of David in one telling and the son of Adam in another?

If Adam is the ancestor of Abraham, the father of all Israelites, and David was an Israelite... Am I missing something?
Any descendant of Abraham IS a descendant of Adam.
Any descendent of Adam has a potential to also be the descendant of Abraham, and a little less but still potentiality to be the descendant of David.

... I have a feeling I'm missing what you mean here.

----------------------
Conjecture:
Bottom line is, the book is by and large allegorical stories of who knows how many differing ancient origins, compiled into what was 2000 years ago a modern setting. Giving it potency and efficacy.

Fast forward 2 millennia and the ideas can be understood. Unfortunately, the application can be incongruous due to too some bad actors, but mostly as a result of human advancement.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I mean come on, Mark do I really have to be pointing out this stuff to you??????

That is my question...

If you do not have an actual point or conclusion such as; "Therefore, God is fake and the Bible is completely and utterly devoid of value" or something along those lines... I guess, just...

Beat that dead horse, if it thrills you.

 

[leroy]

But you didn't argue. You claimed. You claimed that resurrection was more likely than other explanations, but gave no reason why this should be the case. This gets back to possible. We know that fraud and errors occur, but not that miracles, which may be impossible, do. That immediately drops miracle to less likely. It also violates Occam's parsimony principle, since it requires extra conditions to explain what is explainable without them.

Ok lets say that your hypothesis is that the events related to the resurrection occurred as described in the bible, except that it was not a real resurrection, they were hallucinations that were wrongly interpreted as “real” by the disciples.

The reason why I would say that my hypothesis (real resurrection) is better than your are:

Mass hallucinations are not known to be possible ether, remember we are talking about cases where the disciples talked to Jesus, touched him ate with him etc. hallucinations are personal experiences, if you are hallucinating that there is unicorn in your room, then other people would not see the unicorn…. So you need a miracle anyway

Hallucinations don’t explain the empty tomb

The disciples where proclaiming a real physical resurrection, why would they make a mistake? Usually one can distinguish between hallucinations and real stuff…… many people see their beloved ones after they die, but none concludes “physical resurrection”

It also violates Occam's parsimony principle, since it requires extra conditions to explain what is explainable without them.

It´s the other way around………… hallucinatiosn hypothesis has to add and unknown mechanism that causes group hallucinations that “feel real” + a stage and elaborate conspiracy theory to explain the empty tomb . (2 variables)



While I am adding just one extra variable “a mechanism that makes resurrections possible”

hallucinations is less parsimonius than resurection

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Mass hallucinations are not known to be possible ether

hallucinations are personal experiences, if you are hallucinating that there is unicorn in your room, then other people would not see the unicorn

Folie à deux

Edit: I have a little jingle in my head that helps me remember the name of this phenomenon:

"Folie a deux, madness for two! When the madness in me becomes the madness in you! Folly we do!

 

[leroy]

Agreed. You seem to think that the tax cheat example supports your position. You realize, I hope, that he is hoping to pay fewer taxes when he lies like that.

Why don’t you address my point instead of changing my words in your quote?



I said, people are unlikely to lie, if that lie goes against your purpose.

So ether agree or refute the point

Why? Who is going to believe that somebody fitting that description was recently crucified? It's a pretty detailed description. They changed Jesus in ways that couldn't be ruled out - miracles - but did not describe him as a literal king, conqueror, and world unifier and peacemaker. It's not hard to imagine why. The argument that there is only one interpretation of these facts - that the miracles must have happened - is flawed.

It is hard to imagine for me,

If Paul could have made everything up, if he had both the desire and the means to invent stories and full everybody,,,,,,,,,,,,,, why wouldn’t he invent a messiah that perfectly fit the OT ad Jewish expectations.?