There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[leroy]

Nope, I have to stop you right there since you have not formed a proper premise. Let's treat this as your premise. If an embellishment aids a cause then many authors will have no problem incorporating it. "Super Jesus" is a story that would not attract many believers. A good yarn makes for more believers. So whether true or not embellishments are not an "embarrassment" if they aid the cause. It looks as if you already lost the argument.

Now you are using a false equivalence. Not perfect is not "broken". And having supposed problems with an item can help in its sale. Let's say that I am selling a new Rolls Royce for only $20,000. The first thing that anyone is going to ask is "what is wrong with it". Now let's say that it is stolen, but just like the Jesus story not being true, I do not want to let on that that is the fact. So I am apt to lie to make an excuse for why it is so cheap. And let's say that I know it is stolen, but because a person stole from me I felt justified in stealing from him. I might be searching for justification for my wrong deed so much that I might be willing to believe my own lies.

So another failed argument.


True, but you did not think of all possibilities. Let's say that your money was accrued by illegal means. You would still owe taxes on it. To keep the IRS off your back you slightly over report so that they do not investigate you.

And then you got far off into lala land. Your arguments as usual failed. This time as about a 14 year old level. That is a slight improvement. But as to #4, it is obvious to any observant Jew that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies. That is why it became necessary to generate a whole series of new ones, most of them not even prophecies, after the fact. The lie in this case was "Well he may not have fulfilled this or that prophecy but look at all of these prophecies that he did fulfill". Now your average Jew back then could not read. Literacy was very low in those days and they would have to take people at their word that they were not quote mining. But guess what? Now we can go to those sources and see that they are lying by quoting out of context. People that want other people to believe will tell lies. They will even justify telling those lies in their own minds because it accomplishes their goals.

If an embellishment aids a cause then many authors will have no problem incorporating it.

sure, but......
Why is it that you changed my premise, for that other premise?

My premise is that an author is unlikely to lie, if this lie goes against his goals or purposes.

So ether refute or agree with the premise

 

[Subduction Zone]

sure, but......
Why is it that you changed my premise, for that other premise?

My premise is that an author is unlikely to lie, if this lie goes against his goals or purposes.

So ether refute or agree with the premise

Because you have an unjustified assumption in your premise and I was explaining why it is unjustified. I did not really change it .

 

[leroy]

Mass hallucinations are known to be possible, but that's is not my hypothesis.

ok so for simplicity I will only deal with stuff cocerning your hypotheiss

My leading hypothesis is that the story is mostly myth, that there was no talk of resurrection around the time of Jesus' death -

That is easy to falsify

1 the earless creed dated within a 1 or 2 years after the crusifixtion already talk about a resurrection.

2 Paul was already talking about the resurrection, he knew the apostles and many other first generation Christians. Not to mention that he also experienced a resurrection event,.

My point is that it is obvious that first generation Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection............ so yes we know and we can show that there was "talk of resurection" shorlty after Jesus died.

that it was a fiction borrowed from regional demigod myths and added later along with fabricated stories of people witnessing a resurrection in the mythogenesis process that we see as we go from Mark to Matthew and Luke and then John, which began decades after the crucifixion.

That is very unlikely, the apostles suffered and where willing to die, for the truth of the resurrection, … if this was just as myth they would have known that. (in fact they would have to be the authors of that myth)

Nobody would die for a lie that they themselves invented.

What makes it a tomb if it's empty? I don't know that there was an empty tomb, nor would I consider it good evidence for a resurrection if there were.

It´s a correct prediction.

If Jesus really resurrected, we would expect to find an empty tomb…………………….if the alleged resurrection was a hallucination or a lie or a myth them tomb would not expected to be empty

I am not saying that this fact itself proves the resurrection, but is part of a cumulative case.

Your hypothesis requires that something not known to have ever occurred did occur - the deliberate suspension of the known laws of nature. Mine is based in naturalism. In human experience, everything eventually dies, stays dead, and unless immediately fossilized in amber or something similar, decomposes.

Well if you aspire to show that your hypothesis explains all the data, you do have to invoke many “new” things .

Like someone somehow stole the body, the apostles had hidden and unknown motives to lie and then die in the name of that lie, somehow Christianity flourished without the resurrection, etc.

So I don’t see how your hypothesis is more parsimonious.

All I am saying is:

1 The existence of God is Possible (and not veeery unlikely)

2 if God exist miracles every once in a while would be probable and expected to happen (or at least not unexpected)

3 if miracles occure , resurrection are not so unlikely

4 we have plenty of historical evidence for the resurrection, for example we have multiple independent sources proclaiming that event, we have an empty tomb, we have the rise of a new religion etc.

So the resurrection hypothesis comes from accepting those 4 premises, ……. I know that I can´t prove conclusively some of those premises, but none of them seems “obviously wrong”

Premise 1 would be granted by agnostics and even week atheist…………….. only strong atheist (those who affirm that God certainly doesn’t exist) would deny point 1) But beign a strong atheist, has a burden prove that in my opionion is imposible to carry

 

[leroy]

Because you have an unjustified assumption in your premise and I was explaining why it is unjustified. I did not really change it .

No, my premise is not making the alleged unjustified assumption.

I agree that the assumption that you described (related to super Jeus) would be an unjustified assumption………… but such an assumption is not being made in my argument nor in the criteria of embarrassment.

all I am saying is that people are unlikely to lie, if this lie goes agaisnt your goals.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1 The existence of God is Possible (and not veeery unlikely)

The existence of a god is possible, but not the god of Abraham. Nobody did what that god is credited with doing in the OT creation myth. The evidence for evolution rules that out.

2 if God exist miracles every once in a while would be probable and expected to happen (or at least not unexpected)
3 if miracles occure , resurrection are not so unlikely

How does that help your case? If no gods exist, then miracles don't occur.

we have multiple independent sources proclaiming that event,

You have scripture (one source), it's hearsay, and even alleged eyewitness testimony would not be convincing.

we have an empty tomb

You have claims of an empty tomb. Furthermore, an empty tomb would not be good evidence for a resurrection.

we have the rise of a new religion

That's not evidence that that religion is based in fact any more than the rise of other religions is evidence that they are correct.

The problem for you here is that you believe and represent that you arrived at your theistic position using evidence but find that your evidence doesn't convince critical thinkers. Your arguments aren't sound. All you can say is that a god might exist and might have resurrected somebody because a book says so and nobody can prove that it didn't happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, my premise is not making the alleged unjustified assumption.

I agree that the assumption that you described (related to super Jeus) would be an unjustified assumption………… but such an assumption is not being made in my argument nor in the criteria of embarrassment.

all I am saying is that people are unlikely to lie, if this lie goes agaisnt your goals.

No, I explained how you did that. You can claim not to have done that, but those arguments showed how that claim was not justified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 the earless creed dated within a 1 or 2 years after the crusifixtion already talk about a resurrection.

Are we talking pirates now? If you are talking about the writings of Paul you are off by more than ten years. The very earliest work was at best about fifteen years after the death of Jesus. I do not know of any works that are earlier than his:

First Epistle to the Thessalonians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2 Paul was already talking about the resurrection, he knew the apostles and many other first generation Christians. Not to mention that he also experienced a resurrection event,.

All of Paul's personal examples were of a spiritual resurrection. He never saw Jesus in the flesh by his own accounts and it seems that he may have though that no one else did either. You may be assuming a bodily resurrection.

My point is that it is obvious that first generation Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection............ so yes we know and we can show that there was "talk of resurection" shorlty after Jesus died.

If ten to fifteen years can be called "shortly". That is more than enough time for a myth to be developed full blown when using oral tradition, which is how the stories appear to have been told at first.

 

[leroy]

The existence of a god is possible, but not the god of Abraham. Nobody did what that god is credited with doing in the OT creation myth. The evidence for evolution rules that out.

I don’t´need to make a case for the specific God of Abraham, (let alone a particular intepretatoin of genesis)………. All I am saying is that the existence of a God –(generic God) is possible and not very unlikely.

Unless you label yourself as a strong atheist (someone that affirms beyond reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist)……. You should grant this point

I am just putting God in the same category you woudl put Aliens or Big Foot.............. We simply don’t know if it exist and we don’t have conclusive evidence against his existence)

How does that help your case? If no gods exist, then miracles don't occur.

If the existence of God is possible (and not very unlikely) then miracles and resurections are not very improbable.

You have scripture (one source), it's hearsay, and even alleged eyewitness testimony would not be convincing.

We have atlases 2 sources, Paul and the Gospels.............. When an event form ancient history is reported by 2 or more independent sources, historians would typically accept the historicity of that event…………….. why making an arbitrary exception here?

You have claims of an empty tomb. Furthermore, an empty tomb would not be good evidence for a resurrection.

That's not evidence that that religion is based in fact any more than the rise of other religions is evidence that they are correct.

The problem for you here is that you believe and represent that you arrived at your theistic position using evidence but find that your evidence doesn't convince critical thinkers. Your arguments aren't sound. All you can say is that a god might exist and might have resurrected somebody because a book says so and nobody can prove that it didn't happen.

You are talking about ancient history , almost everything we know from ancient history is because some “book” said so .

If you have problems in accepting “books” as evidence then you would have to reject nearly all ancient history (not just the parts that contradict your world view)


The point that I am making is that if you don’t affirm that the existence of a god is impossible (or extremely unlikely) …….. then miracles and resurrections wouldn’t be very unlikely …….. multiple independent sources confirming the event should be enough.

 

[leroy]

No, I explained how you did that. You can claim not to have done that, but those arguments showed how that claim was not justified.

It is sad, that you are unable to admit that you were wrong

 

[leroy]

Are we talking pirates now? If you are talking about the writings of Paul you are off by more than ten years. The very earliest work was at best about fifteen years after the death of Jesus. I do not know of any works that are earlier than his:

First Epistle to the Thessalonians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of Paul's personal examples were of a spiritual resurrection. He never saw Jesus in the flesh by his own accounts and it seems that he may have though that no one else did either. You may be assuming a bodily resurrection.

If ten to fifteen years can be called "shortly". That is more than enough time for a myth to be developed full blown when using oral tradition, which is how the stories appear to have been told at first.

But you don’t deny that first generation Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection, do you?--------- you seem to agree with my main point, and you are just being “picky” with secondary stuff.



Just for your information……….part of Paul´s work are quotes from earlier creeds some of them are dated within 1 or 2 years after the crucifixion. ………….

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is sad, that you are unable to admit that you were wrong

LMAO! No, I showed how you were wrong. I think that there is some severe cognitive dissonance on your part. You just cannot see the endless flaws in the poor arguments that you use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you don’t deny that first generation Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection, do you?--------- you seem to agree with my main point, and you are just being “picky” with secondary stuff.

We cannot be sure of what they were saying. You once again made a bogus claim and when the available facts showed that you were wrong you could not back it up. Where did you get your claim about the "earless creed" from? Let me guess, it was an apologist site. You need to remember that apologists are not scholars. They all tend to be Liars for Jesus. They are not reliable.

Just for your information……….part of Paul´s work are quotes from earlier creeds some of them are dated within 1 or 2 years after the crucifixion. ………….

Really? And how do you know that? Paul does not date any of his work that I am aware of. Find a reliable source if you want to make that claim. Liars for Jesus only make those that believe those lies look silly.

 

[leroy]

LMAO! No, I showed how you were wrong. I think that there is some severe cognitive dissonance on your part. You just cannot see the endless flaws in the poor arguments that you use.

But as usual you are unable to quote my actual words and explain why they are flawed

 

[leroy]

We cannot be sure of what they were saying. You once again made a bogus claim and when the available facts showed that you were wrong you could not back it up. Where did you get your claim about the "earless creed" from? Let me guess, it was an apologist site. You need to remember that apologists are not scholars. They all tend to be Liars for Jesus. They are not reliable.

Really? And how do you know that? Paul does not date any of his work that I am aware of. Find a reliable source if you want to make that claim. Liars for Jesus only make those that believe those lies look silly.

Find a reliable source if you want to make that claim. Liars for Jesus only make those that believe those lies look silly.

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

* Cor.15.3-8 affirms the resurection


note how I can support my cliams. why dont you do the same?

We cannot be sure of what they were saying

Well, no, this is ancient history, we cannot be 100% sure about anything

But the evidence strongly indicates, that first generations Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection, ……….. and my best guess is that you agree, you are just “playing skeptic”

 

[Subduction Zone]

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

* Cor.15.3-8 affirms the resurection


note how I can support my cliams. why dont you do the same?


Well, no, this is ancient history, we cannot be 100% sure about anything

But the evidence strongly indicates, that first generations Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection, ……….. and my best guess is that you agree, you are just “playing skeptic”

I don't see a link to a valid source. Try again. Let me put it this way, you might have gotten that quote from an apologist site. They are not above misrepresenting the work of others. If this was true you should be able to find a valid source. And ! Corinthians does not describe a bodily resurrection. It only states that people saw Jesus after he died. Worse yet for you Paul mentions his own experience in the same verses without any explanation of how his was supposedly different. You forgot that Paul only saw visions. And of course that is one of the weaker claims in the Bible if you think about it. That is the "I really do have a girl friend. She lives in Canada . . . She's really hot!" claim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All I am saying is that the existence of a God – (generic God) is possible and not very unlikely.

I can't comment on the probability that a god exists. If one does, it is hidden.

We have at least 2 sources, Paul and the Gospels

You have one book describing what others are said to have seen and said. You place more faith in it than I do. I don't believe it just because I read it.

If you have problems in accepting “books” as evidence then you would have to reject nearly all ancient history (not just the parts that contradict your world view)

What are books evidence of apart from the fact that somebody wrote them and maybe believed what they wrote? Nothing else is true about the world just because we read it in a book. I don't accept anything as fact without sufficient empiric support, especially extraordinary claims.

The point that I am making is that if you don’t affirm that the existence of a god is impossible (or extremely unlikely) …….. then miracles and resurrections wouldn’t be very unlikely …….. multiple independent sources confirming the event should be enough.

Multiple independent sources aren't enough, and we don't even have that - just the claim of that. I've already told you that. You needn't offer it as evidence for a resurrection again.

We think differently. I want to know what is actual, and my method is empiricism, so I require compelling evidence before believing. You want to argue for what is not known to be impossible being the case. There COULD be a god, and if so, miracles like resurrections MIGHT be possible, and people MIGHT have witnessed one. It will never be convincing. You would need more, and there is no more.

 

[leroy]

I don't see a link to a valid source. Try again. Let me put it this way, you might have gotten that quote from an apologist site. They are not above misrepresenting the work of others.

Well the name of the book is in the quote , what else do you whant?


I will add that you are validating the criteria of embarasment by asking for a secular source.

If this was true you should be able to find a valid source. And ! Corinthians does not describe a bodily resurrection. It only states that people saw Jesus after he died. Worse yet for you Paul mentions his own experience in the same verses without any explanation of how his was supposedly different. You forgot that Paul only saw visions. And of course that is one of the weaker claims in the Bible if you think about it. That is the "I really do have a girl friend. She lives in Canada . . . She's really hot!" claim.

Yes yes, but you are changing the topic.



First agree that the creed dates within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion (or refute the claim)


Then we can move to weather if paul proclaimed a bodily resurection or not

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the name of the book is in the quote , what else do you whant?

I need a link to it. Apologists are infamous for lying by quote mining. A quote with no link so that people can check your claims is worthless. That you did not link your source tells us that it was not from a reliable source. It is worthless.

I will add that you are validating the criteria of embarasment by asking for a secular source.

No, that is not the case.

Yes yes, but you are changing the topic.



First agree that the creed dates within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion (or refute the claim)


Then we can move to weather if paul proclaimed a bodily resurection or not

No, there is no need for me to refute a claim that was never properly supported. You still do not understand the burden of proof. You had no source. In this day and age there is no excuse not to link a source for a claim. Especially on an internet debate. Until you provide a reliable source Hitchens' Razor applies.

And you were the one that "changed the subject". We were talking about a bodily resurrection and you brought up hallucinations.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

1 The existence of God is Possible (and not veeery unlikely)

Highly dependent on which faith/religion/concept of God you are using as context.

If we consider what God is in the context of Agnosticism... While not impossible, I don't see any way we could measure or determine any amount of likelihood of the existence of such a being. However, in the definition of agnosticism God is "unknown or unknowable" and as such, I don't know if miracles would be a thing to witness. I personally doubt.

4 we have plenty of historical evidence for the resurrection, for example we have multiple independent sources proclaiming that event, we have an empty tomb, we have the rise of a new religion etc.

We only have a couple pieces of evidences that a man named Joseph had a son named Jesus. And that a man named Jesus was put to trial, convicted, and crucified.

Anything more than that, is our mind using suggestion and its craftiness to fill in holes with convenient/comfortable patterns.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I still have to watch this video, but just stumbled upon it in my suggested feed and thought it pertinent to put here:

I've been following the YouTube channel Crecganforg for a couple years now. He compares many religions around the world and the similarities of traditions and motifs. I find his analysis quite insightful:

https://www.youtube.com/@Crecganford