Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

[Skywalker]

Read the article that I linked. It would not be the first time. You should be aware that the same thing was done to the works of Josephus.

How is that different from the Koran saying that the Bible was corrupted? One could say that Josephus had credible evidence and people think of alternative explanations because it doesn't fit their beliefs. Why would the early Christians lie about Thallus and Josephus?

 

[joelr]

Jesus and Krishna parallels are exaggerated. Krishna wasn't crucified. Was Jesus’ Death & Resurrection Copied From Krishna? | Reasons for Jesus

Krishna was not one of the dying/rising Gods that emerged in the Middle East in the end of B.C?
Who said anything about Krishna in that regard?
As NT scholar Carrier pointed out in his blog the closest parallels are sons/daughters of Gods who were following the Hellenistic model. There are quite a few who pre-date Jesus. The world messiah concept who would provide salvation to humanity and resurrections for all members at the end of the world was taken from the Persians while they invaded Israel. Over those few centuries the Jewish myths (which did not have an afterlife) started adapting Persian concepts into Jewish scripture, heaven, hell, a war between God and Satan, apoctalyism, messianic concepts.
So that is definitely one source of the myths.

The story is about a demigod who dies and rises back up, providing salvation to followers. It doesn't matter if they were crucified. Each story has differences but the basic idea is what religions borrowed.

 

[joelr]

The King of Tyre prophecy is about Satan. Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan? | GotQuestions.org

Also, can you post to papers that contain names of the authors so one can see their credentials. They also need to post sources. These apologetic papers do not prove anything?
This paper explains that the original version of Deuteronomy stated El was the most high god and gave Yahweh his inheritance of Israel. Further demonstration that this is all mythology.
But notice the sources and so on.

The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence

 

[joelr]

Secular historians believe that Jesus existed. The people who tried to explain away the tomb of Jesus sounded like they were trying to hide something. 26 Powerful Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Existed | Reasons for Jesus

James Bishop is not a scholar. He's an apologist. Every single reason he stated is debunked by actual scholars. Throwing un-sourced amateur articles around as as if that proves a point is a huge fail.

Here are a few rebuttals to Bishop's reasons Jesus existed by people who actually study the field, every reason he gives are apologetic non-truths.

"
1. “Nothing to the Contrary”

This argument has a correct Bayesian form: Bishop says, “If Jesus really were a non-existent figure of history it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would make this known.” Translation: if h, then it is improbable that e, so if mythicism, then it is improbable that no one talked about it. That would be sound if we were talking about the 20th century. But alas, all the records of what was happening in Christian history between Paul and the early second century have been erased. Gone. Completely. So we don’t know what any critics of Christianity were saying in those fifty to eighty years. And you can’t argue from evidence we don’t have.

This is the effect of b, or background knowledge, on the probabilities in Bayesian reasoning. Since we know the records are lost (we don’t even have references to them), we can’t build arguments on what was not in them. So the probability of the absence of evidence in this case is already 100% on h, simply because of b (see Proving History, pp. 219-24). If Christians had preserved their records for that half century, Bishop might be in a better situation. Alas, they didn’t. One can only wonder why (On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.4). The first Christian critics we get to hear from are mid-second century, nearly a hundred years after Paul. And they only know Christian history from the Gospels. By then, there wasn’t any way they could know Jesus was made up.

Not only do we not have any reason “it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would” mention Jesus was made up (On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.12), but we actually do have mentions of Christians who didn’t believe Jesus was a historical person (ibid., pp. 350-53), which demonstrate Christians tried very hard to destroy that evidence (doctoring the Ascension of Isaiah, e.g. OHJ, ch. 3.1; destroying all records of the sect being attacked in 2 Peter, e.g. OHJ, pp. 351-53; declaring all Christians who challenge the historicity of the Gospels anathema, e.g. OHJ, ch. 8.6; etc.). Which not only tells us they had something to hide, but that they were actively hiding it (e.g., OHJ, pp. 301-05).

Bishop also naively cites the Talmud here, evidently unaware that Talmudic Jews only knew of a Christian sect that taught Jesus had died a hundred years before Pontius Pilate (and by stoning, and in Lydda, not Jerusalem). This supposedly thorough research of Rabbis into the origins of Christianity…turned up that? This is a serious problem for someone who wants to claim historicity (OHJ, ch. 8.1).

3. “Jesus’s crucifixion is historically certain”

Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.

There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check.

When Paul mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, he never places that event on earth. In fact, he doesn’t appear to even know about it having happened at the hands of Romans or Jews at all, but the demonic forces of evil (OHJ, ch. 11.4, 11.7-8), just as was originally said in the Christian Gospel known as the Ascension of Isaiah (OHJ, ch. 3.1).

Hence even if they actually mentioned Jesus (and this is actually doubtful: OHJ, ch. 8.9-10), Tacitus and Josephus are just repeating what Christians told them (or their informants), and those Christians were just repeating what the Gospels told them, and the Gospels are just repeating the story that first appeared in only one place: Mark. That’s not independent evidence. It’s useless.

Note that Bishop naively again cites the Talmud here as well. Which besides double-counting evidence (an obvious fallacy of reasoning), exposes his ignorance yet again, per my remarks about this source above: the Talmud records Jesus was stoned, not killed by crucifixion. He was “hung” only in the manner prescribed by Torah law: in Jewish law the corpse of all executed convicts was always to be hung up for display until sundown. Notably, if you count that as a crucifixion (and well you could), you now have to admit that it may also have been the only death Paul knew of as well, and thus we can no longer establish that Paul was referring to a Roman execution. He could even have been referring to the cosmic one portrayed in the Ascension of Isaiah. We can’t tell. Our only source attempting to tell us is Mark. A purely literary work of outlandish mythography (OHJ, ch. 10.4).

This means the crucifixion of Jesus is no better attested than the labors of Hercules.

That’s a problem. Don’t you think?

 

[joelr]

This seems contradictory. If all extra-biblical mention Jesus and Christian... and then you say there is no evidence - ???''

It's long been known in scholarship that all extra-biblical mentions of Jesus are either forgeries or simply confirming that there are a group of people who follow the gospels and Jesus is the demigod character.

Then, you are limiting it to just those who probably didn't care (extra-biblical) and omit those who actually interfaced with and had first or second hand knowledge of him.

No, I am interested in all available evidence. Suggesting otherwise is plain wrong and some sort of self defense mechanism that allows you to believe I must be somehow biased or else I would find evidence to confirm the religion. This is not the case. We can go back to the gospels but there is no doubt that the gospels are all redactions of Mark, each adding a different political agenda (one wants conversion to Judaism first another says "no.no we take everyone.. and so on..)

Irenaeus (circa AD 120–190) wrote that Polycarp was "instructed" and "appointed" by the apostles, and "conversed with many who had seen Christ...having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:4.

In 180? This doesn't demonstrate Jesus was real even a little?

"in it, Irenaeus identifies and describes several schools of Gnosticism, as well as other schools of Christian thought, and contrasts their beliefs with his conception of orthodox Christianity."

Church Historian Eusibius said of Irenaeus "the accounts which [Polycarp] gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life’."

Eusibius is known for many lies regarding Christian history, some are documented here:
How To Fabricate History: The Example of Eusebius on Alexandrian Christianity • Richard Carrier

"When we look where Eusebius quotes sources, and where he just makes claims backed by no sources, we get a more accurate picture of what Eusebius didn’t know—and of what he wanted, and needed, to invent. He isn’t doing history. He is fabricating history. When he has no sources, no evidence, he cites anonymous hearsay, which we can’t even tell really existed; claims Eusebius himself was making up he could readily just attribute to an unidentified “they” or a pretentious “we.”.."

So to say that he didn't exist would be in error.

In Carriers latest 6 year Jesus historicity study he gives 3 to 1 odds that there was an actual man named Jesus teaching reformed Judaism. Bart Ehrman thinks the odds are much much higher. None of them think the supernatural gospels version is true. No historian believes that.

Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians says "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" and well as "our Lord and God Jesus Christ."

Polycarp, Philippians 12:2.

So, again, to say that he didn't exist because your historian says so is to deny those who knew the apostles.

I told you I have covered all possible sources? The Crisis letters are late 130's and just speaking on material written in the gospels.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians - Wikipedia
P. N. Harrison, who accepted the traditional Trajanic date of the epistles of Ignatius, dated the Crisis Letter to around 135-137 AD [4]:243

Your say so doesn't make it so. Your position is that somehow Ehrman is the guru of historians. I wouldn't hold to that position.

Carrier who has done the latest Jesus Historicity study is the one (of several historians) leaning in favor of mythicism. Ehrman is completely in favor of historicity. All historians in the NT field are in one or the other. None think the myths written about the man are actually real. Ehrman, like all historians think Jesus was a man who was later mythicized to be a savior demigod.
There are many historians to study. Actually Thomas Thompson an archeologist did some of the best work in the late 70's with the History of the Patriarchial Naratives and demonstrated beyond any doubt that Moses and the Patriarchs were mythic story devices.

There are specialists in each area like Elaine Pagels on the Gnostic Gospels or Richard Purvoe on Acts.

I do not think you are looking at evidence. Did you even look at the bible.org explanation of the synoptic problem?
They still believe in some sort of supernatural religion but even they will not give in to psuedo-science/history because it does not stand up to evidence. Many apologists will not even entertain this type of research and you are wondering below why apologetics are being called pseudo-science???
Because they deny obvious evidence. Personally I am interested in what is true.

 

[joelr]

I understand that you have your group that you trust but notice the simple "in you face" problems in just these statements:
1. "honest professional context" - as if you differ from his position you are not honest or professional. A fallacy
2. "All non-fundamentalist scholars" - is a global statement with no way to prove that. Additionally, it also forgets the other side that there are fundamentalist scholars that disagree. To infer that if you are fundamental in your belief and support you are therefore wrong is another fallacy
3. "Christian apologetics is pseudo-history" is his viewpoint
4. Comparing it to Atlantis and Moroni really shows what this is about. He doesn't agree with the historicity and makes a foolish and unethical comparison.

1. - "honest professional context" - you need be specific. Because there are actual lies in apologetics while lies in historical papers are flagged by peer-review. For example in that detective "work" he lied. He attributed things to magic while failing to mention there is a huge thing in Christian scholarship called the synoptic problem where the literary interdependence of the gospels is impossible. Yet he DID NOT MENTION this as even a possibility. This omission is an outright lie.
2. - All non-fundamentalist scholars" - Well a very small few have gotten degrees and still believe evolution is wrong, young Earth is correct and basically throw out several fields of science. The massive amount of confirmation bias here rules these people out. But if they can demonstrate any good scientific point they always have that chance.
1.
3. - Christian apologetics is pseudo-history" No apologetics match up with what several fields of study show. Creation science had to create their own publication so they could claim they had "published work". If their work had merit it would stand a peer-review. But it doesn't. For example some still believe in a world flood despite the mountains of evidence that has ruled it out. what about history? The facts in that detective work ignored the synoptic problem, it ignored the fact that Christian scholars know the gospels have a literary interdependence, it ignores the dates in consensus by Christian academia to make them earlier. It basically calls for magic god-intervention as an answer.This IS pseudo science and history.

4. - Comparing it to Atlantis and Moroni . Christianity is Jewish mythology. It contains wisdom and laws as all myths do but it also contains completely made-up supernatural beings and concepts. Moroni is an angel from Mormonism and is equally as fictitious as an angel from the OT. Joe SMith claimed a revelation. So did Paul. Both were having some type of human experience rather than a visit from a fictional being. Christianity is a syncretic mix of Israelite myths (which came from Mesopotamian myths), later took on many Persian myths and ended with the Mystery religion myths. It is not unethical to say this as it can be shown to be extremely likely.

As noted above. You omit a more secure viewpoint - those who knew Jesus and the next generation.

I will deal with any source you like. The gospels coming 40 years later and written wildly fictitious and copying so much from other religions and even from Mark provide only excellent evidence that those are fiction. I have touched on this and there is much more to understanding that this is true. All historians will back this up.

Yes... you listened to hours. I have listened and studied for hours. So, we are looking at the same evidence but arrive at a different conclusion.

I do not believe that is true. I do not believe you are even aware of the synoptic problem or you would definitely not had referenced Wallace.
I do not believe you have ever studies any historian or archeologist.
Thompsons book is still considered one of the greats.
Bart Ehrman has several books on Jesus, Carrier has On the Historicity of Jesus, Pagels wrote about the Gnostic gospels and Ignatius letters. The origins of much of the OT mythology is documented in Mary Boyce's book on Zoroastrianism and how it influenced 2nd temple Judaism.

You do not seem to be aware of even what Christian scholarship has to say, never mind historians?
You made a statement that Ehrman isn't the great historian I seem to be making of him. First the majority of his information is already standard and taken from other historians? But did you go read a few of his books and listen to some debates? Probably not since yesterday. You could, you would learn his knowledge is vast and every page of scripture and every letter and historical writing from the period is memorized from the original language, and more. But you just made up a judgment and are now trying to say we both looked at the same evidence? Clearly we have not and why you would judge Ehrman without a deep dive into his work betrays a huge amount of confirmation bias here.

Here is a simple one where he debates if our version of the NT could be the original with J. Sheffield

It really just illustrates why a hobbyist scholar should not debate a PhD historian. But Sheffield tried.

As per David L. Turner recognized as a best commentary author

"Thus, the present commentary seeks to understand Matthew in its own right, utilizing the discipline that has come to be known as narrative criticism (Powell 1990)."

Turner, D., & Bock, D. L. (2005). Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (p. 3). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

Perfect example. Another theology guy. They go into their studies assuming this myth is something that is actually historical. He doesn't care that we can show it's copy-cat stories all the way through or that the gospels are anonymous and written as fiction and even take OT stories and re-write them or any of that. This is how you avoid what's actually true. I can do theology in any religion and start learning "what God meant by this passage"..that still won't show me that it's metaphorical fiction and the stories are not even original. I am interested in whats' true.

Each gospel was an attempt to write a beter "definitive" gospel. They didn't know they would use several. Each author had different political agendas and theology they wanted to institute.
When they were assembled in the 3rd century it was probably political why certain books were chosen (churches in favor with Constantine had their gospel put in the canon) and theologians were like "don't worry we can unite the creeds and contradictions". They can't. But we do not know for sure why the canon was chosen.

Irrelevant. You position basically says the Mohammad never existed either.

I know less about Islam. Mohammad probably existed, I believe we have much better records for his life. What definitely did NOT exist was the angel Gabriel who came down to give him scripture. That is a myth.

As I have said... this never existed Jesus had followers immediately after his death, burial and resurrection. To say he didn't exist is to deny the 1st and 2nd century writers who knew Jesus first hand or in the next generation:

Not really? The gospels didn't come around for 40 years? Again, there is no extra-biblical confirmation that Jesus existed outside the gospels which are fiction, all copied from Mark, written to fulfill prophecies and to give the Jewish religion their own messiah.

Try to remember, historicity is the belief that Jesus was a teacher and was later mythicized into a God. Mythicism is there was no actual man, it's all myth. Either way, people follow stories and die for them and so on. That belief was around in other religions and very popular. The idea of salvation from death is a popular idea. Mohammud also had followers and so did Joe Smith and Krishna.

1 John 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

John? The last gospel? The gospel writers do not claim to be eyewitnesses?

"Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses"
Gospel - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny]

Perhaps he should have said "no reliable evidence that Christianity is true". There are only highly biased sources that support your beliefs. There are not independent ones. Evidence that there was someone named Jesus, and even that is rather weak, is not "evidence that Christianity is true" any more than the existence of Muhammad is evidence that Islam is true.

Only if you look at it with a "I don't believe" bias

 

[Skywalker]

Also, can you post to papers that contain names of the authors so one can see their credentials. They also need to post sources. These apologetic papers do not prove anything?
This paper explains that the original version of Deuteronomy stated El was the most high god and gave Yahweh his inheritance of Israel. Further demonstration that this is all mythology.
But notice the sources and so on.

The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence

The Bible has 100% percent accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called "prophecies." The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During tat time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God's prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other "sacred writing" has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an “anointed one” (“Messiah” in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred—a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. You can read His story in the book of Luke. Starting at age 30, Jesus fulfilled more and more of these prophecies written about the Messiah. His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible’s writers were inspired supernaturally—by God.

 

[Skywalker]

James Bishop is not a scholar. He's an apologist. Every single reason he stated is debunked by actual scholars. Throwing un-sourced amateur articles around as as if that proves a point is a huge fail.

Here are a few rebuttals to Bishop's reasons Jesus existed by people who actually study the field, every reason he gives are apologetic non-truths.

"
1. “Nothing to the Contrary”

This argument has a correct Bayesian form: Bishop says, “If Jesus really were a non-existent figure of history it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would make this known.” Translation: if h, then it is improbable that e, so if mythicism, then it is improbable that no one talked about it. That would be sound if we were talking about the 20th century. But alas, all the records of what was happening in Christian history between Paul and the early second century have been erased. Gone. Completely. So we don’t know what any critics of Christianity were saying in those fifty to eighty years. And you can’t argue from evidence we don’t have.

This is the effect of b, or background knowledge, on the probabilities in Bayesian reasoning. Since we know the records are lost (we don’t even have references to them), we can’t build arguments on what was not in them. So the probability of the absence of evidence in this case is already 100% on h, simply because of b (see Proving History, pp. 219-24). If Christians had preserved their records for that half century, Bishop might be in a better situation. Alas, they didn’t. One can only wonder why (On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.4). The first Christian critics we get to hear from are mid-second century, nearly a hundred years after Paul. And they only know Christian history from the Gospels. By then, there wasn’t any way they could know Jesus was made up.

Not only do we not have any reason “it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would” mention Jesus was made up (On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.12), but we actually do have mentions of Christians who didn’t believe Jesus was a historical person (ibid., pp. 350-53), which demonstrate Christians tried very hard to destroy that evidence (doctoring the Ascension of Isaiah, e.g. OHJ, ch. 3.1; destroying all records of the sect being attacked in 2 Peter, e.g. OHJ, pp. 351-53; declaring all Christians who challenge the historicity of the Gospels anathema, e.g. OHJ, ch. 8.6; etc.). Which not only tells us they had something to hide, but that they were actively hiding it (e.g., OHJ, pp. 301-05).

Bishop also naively cites the Talmud here, evidently unaware that Talmudic Jews only knew of a Christian sect that taught Jesus had died a hundred years before Pontius Pilate (and by stoning, and in Lydda, not Jerusalem). This supposedly thorough research of Rabbis into the origins of Christianity…turned up that? This is a serious problem for someone who wants to claim historicity (OHJ, ch. 8.1).

3. “Jesus’s crucifixion is historically certain”

Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.

There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check.

When Paul mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, he never places that event on earth. In fact, he doesn’t appear to even know about it having happened at the hands of Romans or Jews at all, but the demonic forces of evil (OHJ, ch. 11.4, 11.7-8), just as was originally said in the Christian Gospel known as the Ascension of Isaiah (OHJ, ch. 3.1).

Hence even if they actually mentioned Jesus (and this is actually doubtful: OHJ, ch. 8.9-10), Tacitus and Josephus are just repeating what Christians told them (or their informants), and those Christians were just repeating what the Gospels told them, and the Gospels are just repeating the story that first appeared in only one place: Mark. That’s not independent evidence. It’s useless.

Note that Bishop naively again cites the Talmud here as well. Which besides double-counting evidence (an obvious fallacy of reasoning), exposes his ignorance yet again, per my remarks about this source above: the Talmud records Jesus was stoned, not killed by crucifixion. He was “hung” only in the manner prescribed by Torah law: in Jewish law the corpse of all executed convicts was always to be hung up for display until sundown. Notably, if you count that as a crucifixion (and well you could), you now have to admit that it may also have been the only death Paul knew of as well, and thus we can no longer establish that Paul was referring to a Roman execution. He could even have been referring to the cosmic one portrayed in the Ascension of Isaiah. We can’t tell. Our only source attempting to tell us is Mark. A purely literary work of outlandish mythography (OHJ, ch. 10.4).

This means the crucifixion of Jesus is no better attested than the labors of Hercules.

That’s a problem. Don’t you think?

The crucifixion of Jesus is historical. Sources that reject it are regarded as non historical. Jewish and Roman historians are not biased because they weren't believers.

Historical Problems With Islam’s View Of Jesus’ Crucifixion | Reasons for Jesus

All our primary sources — the gospel biographies of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, the letters of the Apostle Paul, the New Testament texts of Hebrews and 1 Peter (2:24), and Jewish historian Josephus Flavius and Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus — affirm Christ as the victim of a Roman crucifixion, and not some other person. Given this it is almost certain that Christ was crucified, a warranted position to hold in the absence of reasonable historical doubt.

Moreover, what is the historical evidence other than the Qur’an (a text which itself historians do not use to reconstruct first century Christian history given that it was penned some five to six centuries later and seems to have derived information from later gnostic texts) that proponents of the substitution hypothesis cite?

This is usually the Gospel of Barnabas, a text which dates, based on anachronisms, no earlier than the 14th century. A persuasive reason for this date is the year of Jubilee which, according to the Old Testament (Leviticus 25:11), occurred every 50 years. However, around the year 1300 AD, Pope Boniface XIII (1294–1303) declared that the year of Jubilee would be held every 100 years (this was changed again in 1343 when Pope Clement XI (1291-1352) returned it back to every 50 years).

It is then interesting that the Gospel of Barnabas refers to the year of Jubilee being every 100 years, which suggests that it was probably written between the year 1300 and 1343. Importantly, there is evidence of an earlier text also bearing the same name, which is referred to in the Galasian Decree (c. 519-553 AD) and the List of Sixty Books (7th century AD).

However, given the anachronisms of the Gospel of Barnabas used by Muslims to inform their substitution view of Christ’s crucifixion, these are two different texts bearing the same name, with the earlier one referred to as apocryphal (being falsely attributed to someone important; in this case to the original disciple Barnabas of the first century).

The Gospel of Barnabas used by Muslims dates 1300 years after Christ’s life, and cannot be considered a primary, nor a reliable, historical source on the matters of early Christian history. It was also conspicuously authored with the intention of rendering its contents friendly to the Qur’an’s view of Christ’s crucifixion and Islamic theology (note that the Qur’an was itself written 600 years before this text).

 

[Skywalker]

Also, can you post to papers that contain names of the authors so one can see their credentials. They also need to post sources. These apologetic papers do not prove anything?
This paper explains that the original version of Deuteronomy stated El was the most high god and gave Yahweh his inheritance of Israel. Further demonstration that this is all mythology.
But notice the sources and so on.

The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence

Many authors support Jesus being credible. THE CASE FOR CHRIST: Looking at the evidence

Gary Collins, a professor of psychology (author of forty-five books on psychology-related topics) said Jesus exhibited no inappropriate emotions, was in contact with reality, was brilliant and had amazing insights into human nature, and enjoyed deep and abiding relationships. “I just don’t see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness”.

When analysing the gruesome events leading up to, and ending in Christ’s crucifixion, Dr. Alexander Metherell (Physician and Doctorate in Engineering) concluded that “Jesus could not have survived the gruesome afflictions of crucifixion, much less the gaping wound that pierced his lung and heart. In fact, even before the crucifixion he was in serious to critical condition and suffering from hypovolemic shock as the result of His horrific flogging. The idea that he somehow swooned on the cross and pretended to be dead lacks any evidential basis. Roman executioners were grimly efficient, knowing that they themselves would face death if any of their victims were to come down from the cross alive.”[11] The American biblical series A.D. Kingdom and Empire gave an excellent portrayal of this.

Was Jesus’ body really absent from His tomb?
William Lane Craig (American Analytic Philosopher, Christian Theologian, Apologist, and Author) has provided convincing evidence that the empty tomb of Jesus was a historical reality. The empty tomb is reported and implied in extremely early manuscripts, such as Mark’s gospel and an earliy creed in 1 Corinthians 15. The eyewitness accounts are recorded so near to the event that they could not possibly be regarded as legend.[12]

The recently deceased British theologian Michael Green has said that: “The appearances of Jesus after His death are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity… There can be no rational doubt that they occurred.”[16] As mentioned before, the eyewitness accounts date back so near to the event that this rules out the possibility of distortion by myth. Gary Habermas (American Historian, New Testament Scholar, Philosopher of Religion, and Christian Apologist) also rightly states that Paul even challenged first-century sceptics to speak with those who had seen Him to determine for themselves the truth of the matter. “The book of Acts is littered with extremely early affirmations of Jesus’ resurrection, while the gospels describe numerous encounters in detail.”[17]

 

[Skywalker]

Krishna was not one of the dying/rising Gods that emerged in the Middle East in the end of B.C?
Who said anything about Krishna in that regard?
As NT scholar Carrier pointed out in his blog the closest parallels are sons/daughters of Gods who were following the Hellenistic model. There are quite a few who pre-date Jesus. The world messiah concept who would provide salvation to humanity and resurrections for all members at the end of the world was taken from the Persians while they invaded Israel. Over those few centuries the Jewish myths (which did not have an afterlife) started adapting Persian concepts into Jewish scripture, heaven, hell, a war between God and Satan, apoctalyism, messianic concepts.
So that is definitely one source of the myths.

The story is about a demigod who dies and rises back up, providing salvation to followers. It doesn't matter if they were crucified. Each story has differences but the basic idea is what religions borrowed.

A lot of the parallels between Jesus and Zoroaster are exaggerated. Baptism and repentance is not part of Zoroastrianism.

Jesus Vs Zoroaster – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

4. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and “holy wind.” This is kind of odd, because this would equate with a “John the Baptist myth,” not a Christ myth! Even so, I find no evidence of any of these at all. Zoroaster did have an association with sacred fires [Jack.ZP, 98] that were part of the fire-cults in three particular temples, and seemed to have taken a part in preserving the fire-cult (which liked to keep the fires going, sort of like our eternal flame at Arlington Cemetery) but he did not “baptize” with and of these things.

5. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. As this goes, it is true, but not all of these terms have the same meaning in Zoroastrianism that they do in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only “resurrection” is a good match here — Zoroaster’s faith taught that after judgment, the “dead will rise up” and men will become “not-aging, not-dying, not-decaying, not-rotting” [Herz.ZW, 299]. It’s resurrection, it sounds like, though described by negatives.In terms of the other stuff, there aren’t a lot of similarities [Wat.Z, 95, 96, 98, 102].Salvation was by works alone; there was “practically no place for repentance or pardon:” and “no doctrine of atonement.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you look at it with a "I don't believe" bias

That is not a bias. It is a statement. I do not believe because of the failure of followers religions to support their beliefs with evidence and logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lot of the parallels between Jesus and Zoroaster are exaggerated. Baptism and repentance is not part of Zoroastrianism.

Jesus Vs Zoroaster – Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

Your source keeps using the same idiotic strawman argument. "There are differences therefore they did not copy that source". This does not work with grade school teachers when they catch kids copying off of each other and it should not work with you. It is pretty sad when grade school defenses of cheating convince you.

 

[Skywalker]

Your source keeps using the same idiotic strawman argument. "There are differences therefore they did not copy that source". This does not work with grade school teachers when they catch kids copying off of each other and it should not work with you. It is pretty sad when grade school defenses of cheating convince you.

I never said that unbelievers said that Jesus is exactly like Zoraster I said that a lot of the parallels they believe exist are questionable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said that unbelievers said that Jesus is exactly like Zoraster I said that a lot of the parallels they believe exist are questionable.

I will give you that. But the fact is that the Jesus story does have many similarities to other myths. That makes his story appear to be mythical as well. Or perhaps I should say "legendary". There probably was a Jesus of Nazareth that was a teacher. The story, like so many others, grew after his death.

 

[Skywalker]

I will give you that. But the fact is that the Jesus story does have many similarities to other myths. That makes his story appear to be mythical as well. Or perhaps I should say "legendary". There probably was a Jesus of Nazareth that was a teacher. The story, like so many others, grew after his death.

Do you think the article I quoted is wrong in saying that some of the similarities between Jesus and Zoraster don't exist? Zoroastrian fire temples don't have baptism. Zoroastrianism does not believe in repentance and atonement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think the article I quoted is wrong in saying that some of the similarities between Jesus and Zoraster don't exist? Zoroastrian fire temples don't have baptism. Zoroastrianism does not believe in repentance and atonement.

Of course there are similarities. Who cares that there are differences. If you copy form your friend on a test but change 10% of what you copied did you still cheat?

 

[Skywalker]

Of course there are similarities. Who cares that there are differences. If you copy form your friend on a test but change 10% of what you copied did you still cheat?

What similarities are there? The list of similarities all seem doubtful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What similarities are there? The list of similarities all seem doubtful.

Why are they doubtful? Here are some of the traits of the religion:

"The idea of a single god was not the only essentially Zoroastrian tenet to find its way into other major faiths, most notably the ‘big three’: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The concepts of Heaven and Hell, Judgment Day and the final revelation of the world, and angels and demons all originated in the teachings of Zarathustra, as well as the later canon of Zoroastrian literature they inspired. Even the idea of Satan is a fundamentally Zoroastrian one; in fact, the entire faith of Zoroastrianism is predicated on the struggle between God and the forces of goodness and light (represented by the Holy Spirit, Spenta Manyu) and Ahriman, who presides over the forces of darkness and evil. While man has to choose to which side he belongs, the religion teaches that ultimately, God will prevail, and even those condemned to hellfire will enjoy the blessings of Paradise (an Old Persian word)."

The obscure religion that shaped the West

Zoroaster was said to be virgin birth and there is just as much evidence for that as there is for the Christian version, which similarities do you find dubious and why?

And of course Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) has the best them music. Checkmate Christian:

 

[Skywalker]

Why are they doubtful? Here are some of the traits of the religion:

"The idea of a single god was not the only essentially Zoroastrian tenet to find its way into other major faiths, most notably the ‘big three’: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The concepts of Heaven and Hell, Judgment Day and the final revelation of the world, and angels and demons all originated in the teachings of Zarathustra, as well as the later canon of Zoroastrian literature they inspired. Even the idea of Satan is a fundamentally Zoroastrian one; in fact, the entire faith of Zoroastrianism is predicated on the struggle between God and the forces of goodness and light (represented by the Holy Spirit, Spenta Manyu) and Ahriman, who presides over the forces of darkness and evil. While man has to choose to which side he belongs, the religion teaches that ultimately, God will prevail, and even those condemned to hellfire will enjoy the blessings of Paradise (an Old Persian word)."

The obscure religion that shaped the West

Zoroaster was said to be virgin birth and there is just as much evidence for that as there is for the Christian version, which similarities do you find dubious and why?

And of course Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) has the best them music. Checkmate Christian:

Zoraster believed in salvation by works which directly contradicts the Bible.