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

[Skywalker]

Pathetic assembly of non-evidence nearly all Bible-based. Here's No. 5 just to give the readers an example of the kinds of "powerful" evidence for Jesus to be found in this article:

5. The Willingness to Suffer & Die for Jesus

This one is regularly trotted out as "proof" Jesus was real. "Would the apostles willingly go to their deaths for a lie?"

The only problem with this: we haven't a SINGLE mention of any of the apostles ANYWHERE in the secular historic record from which a researcher could even investigate how the apostles died. For all practical purposes, the apostles never existed. We can only conclude in absence of a shred of evidence to the contrary that the apostles were merely mythical figures added to fill out the Jesus story. I mean every leader needs followers, right?

I would sincerely like any Christian here to produce a single piece of secular evidence outside the Bible or biased Christian writings that mentions even one apostle and how they died.

Sadly, the rest of the 26 reasons in the article are just as feeble. Powerful evidence indeed!

Psychologists find the notion that Jesus had mental illness questionable. The Case for Christ — China Institute

Was he really convinced that he was the Son of God, or did the early Christians come up with this theory later? From his actions - such as forgiving sins and accepting worship – and from his explicit statements, we can see that Jesus considered himself to be the divine savior.

Yes, but maybe he was crazy! Not according in the opinion of psychologist Gary Collins. Jesus had none of the marks of mental imbalance, and all the traits of a perfectly sane man.

Well, then, did he ACT like God? Did he "fulfill the attributes of God"? He performed mighty miracles. He demonstrated supernatural knowledge, promised to be with his disciples everywhere they went, was described as "with God" before the foundation of the world, and is said to be "the same yesterday and today and forever."

All Christians acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus as the foundation of their faith in him. Strobel concludes his book with four chapters which show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Jesus actually died; that the body was missing form his tomb; that he appeared to many people at many times over a period of more than a month; and that an impressive array of "circumstantial evidence" makes his resurrection credible.

 

[rational experiences]

His story.
History. Talking after the fact of living as a man. Died sacrificed as that man. Wrote about it AFTER the fact.

Science man psyche fact is first. Fact I claim is a number.

Lied.

Fact by number and equation to cause a react ION.

If he says God is held by presence ION by mass...then never change GoD.

The relig ION of God. Ancient science.

Numbers therefore said an act occurred that removed origin is sin.

Teaching of space.
O God once in mass was not God. It was Satan angel.

Seal space cooled held mass God stone presence God.

Scientific reasoning.

Therefore if you remove seal it is owned by God.

God seal kept life protected.

Sacrifice of life by human male father of science God theist removed God seal caused life sacrifice.

A historic story about cause and effect.

Cause and effect is not creation.

It is after the fact.

You cannot in commonsense talk about a man without that man being a hu man who suffered as a human does.

Since when does a gas express suffering as spirit terms in the sciences?

Human stories.
Humans living.
Humans sacrificed as one self wandering walking the God earth was the teaching.

Not every human gets fallout. Depends where you are standing when it falls.

A science relativity teaching about the sacrifice actually.

Christ teaching cause and effect of a human standing on earth wandering about who one by one got sacrificed as individuals. A witnessing event.

Multi countrymen agreed as it was witnessed by humans about humans.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Psychologists find the notion that Jesus had mental illness questionable. The Case for Christ — China Institute

Not a bit of secular evidence for any of this. All presupposition.

 

[rational experiences]

Not a bit of secular evidence for any of this. All presupposition.

God foundation seal of stone relativity.

A human always lived upon the foundation stone. As the man science storyteller.

Was sacrificed died early age man baby death.....yet the same man human lived on as God the foundation still existed.

Rational teaching self human evident.

God was his foundation to live as that man human.

Was never Satan...when God stone never existed.

O mass Satan earth angel before God.

Think of God converting is saying in want satanic reaction with intent God never existed.

Teaching relativity.

 

[Skywalker]

Not a bit of secular evidence for any of this. All presupposition.

What the psychologist said about human emotions was secular evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

Stigmata is evidence.

Change to body. Change to blood.

Only animals and humans own a body with blood.

Crown of thorns rational unknown descriptive analogy on brain chemistry gas burnt radiating fallout.

I know I gained the experience.

A human talks about a human.

Rational evidence.

How information is interpreted owns a psyche appraisal actually

Claiming self righteousness in a life harmed termed a hypocrite when science the study model caused the harm.

Science has its owned emotive incorrect human reasonings itself.

 

[joelr]

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?

First let's check your source on prophecies concerning nations because the messianic prophecies were just stories written to fulfill the OT prophecies.
The example they give is the Edom prophecy:
" “No one shall remain there,
Nor shall a son of man dwell in it.”
It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.

and so forth.

Well the article claims it's so true that it could not be chance except here is the google map for what was Edon:
Google Maps

I can't see the smoke from that high up? "No one shall pass for ever"??
That's weird because there are like 12 cities going down rt 90 just right there which coves the entire length of what was Edon.


So your source is lying.


Also the 100% accuracy thing is easily shown to be wrong.
There are over 200 prophecies and predictions made by Yahweh that did not happen. Some may have ridiculous apologetics and some are left unanswered. They are listed here:
Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes

Many of them are about how everyone will bow down to the Israelite religion and they will rule the world.
Didn't happen.

But then there is a bigger problem with messianic prophecies. Not only did they suddenly start having them during the Persion period and the Persians already had prophecies of a coming world savior (clear proof that the Israelites borrowed the mythology) but the gospels were written by people who likely had already read the Old Testament? So they wrote the story to fulfill the OT predictions? It's a fictional story based on legends from an older fictional story.
You can believe it all day but there is no way to demonstrate that this isn't exactly what it looks like - myths from one nation.

But the prophecies are exactly as vague and unimpressive as prophecies from Islam, Nostradamus and all other ancient supernatural "oracles". All these prophecies about how much they will rule the world and not one mention about germs or objects smaller than we can see making people sick?

Actually the prophecies in Islam are better. But it's still not a prophecy given by some God? People can make predictions that actually happen.
Look:

“The Byzantines have been defeated. In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will triumph. Within three to nine years.” [ar-Rūm 30: 2-4]
And in 8 years they did triumph.

 

[joelr]

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

Throwing around James Bishop articles demonstrates nothing because he has no qualifications except as an apologist. That source does not back up your claims which are false.
Nothing in the gospels is considered historically certain because they are believed to be a mytholicized account of a human person.

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[8] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[5"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

and directly from a NT historian:

"When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib."

So historians do not know. It really doesn't matter if Jesus was a real person or not in this debate. The point is that the stories of a supernatural being and Gods and such are what is myth.

 

[joelr]

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

Many "authors" also support Big Foot, Roswell UFO crash, alien abductions and the Law of Attraction.
No scholarship, including Christian scholarship supports the argument in Case for Christ.
Wallace is actually telling lies by omission when he insists the coincidences among the gospels could not be anything else but divine intervention or proof that they are real.

He likely knows full well Christian scholars believe the answer to the Synoptic Problem is that the gospels were copying from each other.
This is from bible.com:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

If all you can manage for sources are Bishop and Wallace then you have not actually investigated the truth of the claims of your religion.

 

[joelr]

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

Oh my God. Did you just post an article on the Persian religion by JP Holding?
An apologist with a library degree writes an article with ZERO sources?

The worlds leading expert on Zoroastrianism was Mary Boyce. A distinguished scholar who lived in Iran for a year just to learn the truth about the culture.
In her book :
Mary Boyce. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices
(which you can read online)
she confirms that the concepts of a world savior who would be born of a virgin would come to save the world and this was from around 6BC.

On page 29 she confirms this from the Wiki page-

"Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[7] Christianity, Islam,[8] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism

In Judaism there was no afterlife or evil being who opposed God or resurrection at the end times until the Persian invasion. Then these concepts began entering the Jewish mythology.
This was stated by Old Testament professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou at 4:04 in this interview:

 

[joelr]

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.

You don't understand religious syncretism. Basic concepts are the same but each religion adds their own customs and beliefs to it. They don't just copy word for word? Jesus is a Judaized version of the world savior.




"They Judaized it, of course. Jesus is as different from Osiris as Osiris is from Dionysus or Inanna or Romulus or Zalmoxis. The differences are the Jewish tweaks. Just as the Persian Zoroastrian system of messianism, apocalypticism, worldwide resurrection, an evil Satan at war with God, and a future heaven and hell effecting justice as eternal fates for all, was Judaized when they were imported into Judaism. None of those ideas existed in Judaism before that (and you won’t find them in any part of the Old Testament written before the Persian conquest). No one claimed they were “corrupting” Judaism with those pagan ideas (even though in fact they were). They simply claimed these new ideas were all Jewish. Ordained and communicated by God, through inspired scripture and revelation. The Christians, did exactly the same thing."



So if Zoraster believed in salvation by works that is even more evidence the Jewish scribes copied them because even though the Bible contradicts itself on salvation by faith or by faith and works there are passages that have similar "God messages":
For you render to each one according to his works. Psalm 62:12
The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work. [URL='https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/1.html#17']1 Peter 1:17

I will give unto every one of you according to your works. Revelation 2:23

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:29

Who will render to each one according to his deeds.... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. Romans 2:6, 13

For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:10

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11:15[/URL]

 

[joelr]

You really make me wonder what is the impetus of your need to disprove the Christian message

I'm not a fan of passive aggressive. But who is? Please stop pretending like you are all "woah man, why do you want to disprove....??" When you are actively on a RELIGIOUS DEBATE FORUM?????????

As I have stated I'm interested in what is true which takes investigation.

I do not know why you posted a WLC video in response to Ehrman? I have watched one of the WLC vs Ehrman and his debate against Carrier as well as Hitchens. He employs the same old apologetics and he has never debunked the fact that scholars do not agree with his beliefs?
He desperately argues that a fictional story has probability while Ehrman smashes him with actual facts and scholarship.
I find it extremely odd that you are trying to debunk Ehrman but posted a video with the Ehrman clips all cut out? So clearly you did not listen to any rebuttals to see if his arguments have any merit (they do) and clearly do not care. Which means you do not care about what is true.
Otherwise I would ask at which point do you find WLC made a claim Ehrman could not debunk?
Obviously that is futile.

Except "there are actual lies in apologetics" isn't the message he was saying. He was saying that if your were a honest professional you would agree with him... a fallacy.

I already made the case. Apologetics contains lies. A professional would never approach Carrier and say "the coincidences in the gospels can only mean the eventsactually happened, there is no other way to explain it?"
That is a lie. It would not happen in a professional context because professionals admit that there already is a thing called the synoptic problem and is answered by some interdependence among the text. Even scholars who are believers would know and start there.
So he is correct is saying apologist, non-scholars will start out with premises that are not truthful.

LOL... you are just parroting someone's statement because there are more than a hundred of fundamentalist colleges pouring out thousands of degreed scholars. Don't obfuscate the reality that he omitted a whole swath of people by only including those who agreed with his position (as you are doing)

First it was my statement.
Second what I said is correct. There are a few actual scholars who believe in young Earth creation and other such ideas. There may be a few historians in the biblical field who are believers in some capacity. I don't know of any? I would read their work. But, clearly they are in the vast minority.
Bart Ehrman himself was a fundamentalist Christian. The process of getting his masters then onto PhD in NT historicity demonstrated to him the religion is a myth.
as Carrier say's generally no one in "the field" (biblical historicity) believes the stories are anything except religious myths from one particular culture. Because at that level one has actually poured over ALL the evidence. Not just WLC videos.

No one had been able to debunk Thomas Thompson's work on Moses from the 70's and it's considered standard now. That is just one piece of scholarship that shows these are myths rather than history.
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham
"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted."
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...1ab85&pd_rd_wg=TdMJ9&pd_rd_i=1563383896&psc=1


My point? He came from a "fundamentalist" college and his PhD advisor was a Cardinal who refused to accept his work. Now, it's standard knowledge in his field.

Baloney?

Apologetics? We can go case by case. I already demonstrated Wallace's version of history is crank.
Unfortunately his apologetics are standard which means.......yes, baloney.

No.

Cool, provide evidence. Demonstrate this wildly fictitious story has any evidence at all.

Yes... but it amounted to just opinions

The "opinions" also include that Thor son of Odin, Hercules son of Zeus and Krishna son of (that king dude) are myths that people made up and were worshipped by nations. Everything about the Bible also looks to be equally mythical. The "opinion" thing is neither here nor there. This is about reasonable beliefs and evidence.

Now to tackle that directly, what is opinion? 97% of the Greek text from Mark being in Matthew is not opinion?
The creation/flood narrative being extremely similar to Mesopotamian myths is not opinion?
Persian beliefs entering the OT during the Persian invasion is not opinion?
Savior demigods being in mystery religions before Christianity isn't opinion?
Mark using mythic devices isn't opinion. Jesus scoring higher than King Arthur on the mythotype Rank Ragalin scale isn't opinion?
What exactly are you referring to? I guess some stuff is opinion but the point is to look at facts and empirical evidence? It really isn't just opinion?

Again... you make me wonder what the impetus of your position is.

Again, I believe this is passive aggressive. Let's debate people and when they start making sense we'll ask them their motives? I believe I know what you are asking and I think it is an inappropriate place to ask something like that. It's like a boxer getting punched in the ring and being all "why are you hitting me man?"

-you learn from challenging people's positions on things

- you are on a forum entitled General Religious DEBATES

-people should stand up for empiricism and critical thinking which is not taught in school and is why we see flat earthers, anti-vac, anti-evolution, most conspiracies, and so on.

 

[sojourner]

Both Jesus being God and dying for our sins makes him a Savior.

Yeah, but that’s not what you said. “To you is born this day in David’s city, a savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, but that’s not what you said. “To you is born this day in David’s city, a savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

Romans 5:8 says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Christ dying for us and being God both make him the Savior.

 

[Skywalker]

You don't understand religious syncretism. Basic concepts are the same but each religion adds their own customs and beliefs to it. They don't just copy word for word? Jesus is a Judaized version of the world savior.




"They Judaized it, of course. Jesus is as different from Osiris as Osiris is from Dionysus or Inanna or Romulus or Zalmoxis. The differences are the Jewish tweaks. Just as the Persian Zoroastrian system of messianism, apocalypticism, worldwide resurrection, an evil Satan at war with God, and a future heaven and hell effecting justice as eternal fates for all, was Judaized when they were imported into Judaism. None of those ideas existed in Judaism before that (and you won’t find them in any part of the Old Testament written before the Persian conquest). No one claimed they were “corrupting” Judaism with those pagan ideas (even though in fact they were). They simply claimed these new ideas were all Jewish. Ordained and communicated by God, through inspired scripture and revelation. The Christians, did exactly the same thing."



So if Zoraster believed in salvation by works that is even more evidence the Jewish scribes copied them because even though the Bible contradicts itself on salvation by faith or by faith and works there are passages that have similar "God messages":
For you render to each one according to his works. Psalm 62:12
The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work. 1 Peter 1:17

I will give unto every one of you according to your works. Revelation 2:23

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:29

Who will render to each one according to his deeds.... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. Romans 2:6, 13

For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:10

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11:15

The name of Jesus is a reference to him being the Messiah. The basic concepts that people say are in both religions, like John the Baptist like people and salvation, don't exist in both faiths.

There are more differences to Jesus and Osiris besides being Jewish. The similarities between Jesus and Osiris are only superficial. Jesus Vs Osiris: Debunking The Alleged Parallels | Reasons for Jesus

1. Had well over 200 divine names, including Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods, Resurrection and the Life, Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, the god who “made men and women to be born again.”
The titles I have found ascribed to Osiris are [Fraz.AAO] Lord of All, the Good Being (the most common title), Lord of the Underworld, Lord/King of Eternity, Ruler of the Dead, [Griff.OO] Lord of the West, Great One, [Bud.ERR, 26] “he who takes seat,” the Begetter, the Ram, [Bud.ERR, 79] “great Word” (as in, “the word of what cometh into being and what is not” — a reflection of the ancient idea of the creative power of speech, found likewise in the Greek Logos), “Chief of the Spirits”; [Short.EG, 37] ruler of everlastingness, [Meek.DL, 31] “living god,” “God above the gods.”

All of these are either general titles we would expect to be assigned to any head honcho deity, or else are related to Osiris’ command over the underworld. None of the ones cited closest and uniquely like unto Jesus were found.

A person who believes in Jesus is probably going to strive to change their ways but that doesn't mean that they are saved by works.

 

[Skywalker]

Oh my God. Did you just post an article on the Persian religion by JP Holding?
An apologist with a library degree writes an article with ZERO sources?

The worlds leading expert on Zoroastrianism was Mary Boyce. A distinguished scholar who lived in Iran for a year just to learn the truth about the culture.
In her book :
Mary Boyce. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices
(which you can read online)
she confirms that the concepts of a world savior who would be born of a virgin would come to save the world and this was from around 6BC.

On page 29 she confirms this from the Wiki page-

"Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[7] Christianity, Islam,[8] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism

In Judaism there was no afterlife or evil being who opposed God or resurrection at the end times until the Persian invasion. Then these concepts began entering the Jewish mythology.
This was stated by Old Testament professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou at 4:04 in this interview:

I believe that the connection between Judaism and Zoroastrianism is superficial. Those concepts of judgement and heaven and hell and free will exist in other faiths. Even fantasy stories have a messiah figure. There is also evidence that Zoroastrianism copied Judaism. Does Zoroastrianism predate Christianity and is the idea that Christianity borrowed the resurrection of Jesus from the religion believable? – Evidence for Christianity

The claim you have come across is that Zoroastrianism, with its dualism, influenced Judaism and, therefore, also Christianity. It is hard to prove either that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism or that Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism. It is even harder to prove that they did NOT influence each other. What we can say is that Abraham and Moses both lived long before Zoroaster. The Mosaic Law, the Psalms of David and many of the prophets wrote before Zoroaster was even born. Therefore it is common sense to conclude it is more likely that Judaism influenced Zoroaster than vice versa. Judaism is avowedly monotheistic, while Zoroastrianism is dualistic and emerged from polytheism. There is no obvious connection between these religions, but scholars can speculate some connections of they so choose to. In any case, I believe the evidence for the inspiration of the Bible is sufficient that this unproved claim need have no major impact on our understanding of the Bible.

Satan was mentioned in the book of Job before Zoroastrianism. The belief that Satan is part of a divine council of angels is not a belief that all Jewish people share. Some Jewish people believe that there's a devil.

 

[Skywalker]

Many "authors" also support Big Foot, Roswell UFO crash, alien abductions and the Law of Attraction.
No scholarship, including Christian scholarship supports the argument in Case for Christ.
Wallace is actually telling lies by omission when he insists the coincidences among the gospels could not be anything else but divine intervention or proof that they are real.

He likely knows full well Christian scholars believe the answer to the Synoptic Problem is that the gospels were copying from each other.
This is from bible.com:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

If all you can manage for sources are Bishop and Wallace then you have not actually investigated the truth of the claims of your religion.

There are other explanations for coincidences in the gospel besides the gospels copying each other. The authors probably talked to the same eyewitnesses.

 

[Skywalker]

Throwing around James Bishop articles demonstrates nothing because he has no qualifications except as an apologist. That source does not back up your claims which are false.
Nothing in the gospels is considered historically certain because they are believed to be a mytholicized account of a human person.

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[8] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[5"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

and directly from a NT historian:

"When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib."

So historians do not know. It really doesn't matter if Jesus was a real person or not in this debate. The point is that the stories of a supernatural being and Gods and such are what is myth.

The Bible doesn't say that Jesus intended to run away from his parents. It says that Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. The teachings of Jesus in the four gospels aren't vague. The teachings of Jesus in the gnostic gospels, about Jesus told his disciples secret knowledge, are vague and don't seem practical to everyday life.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not a fan of passive aggressive. But who is? Please stop pretending like you are all "woah man, why do you want to disprove....??" When you are actively on a RELIGIOUS DEBATE FORUM?????????

As I have stated I'm interested in what is true which takes investigation.

You are too funny... Now... just take what you said and pretend that it was written from me to you.

I do not know why you posted a WLC video in response to Ehrman? I have watched one of the WLC vs Ehrman and his debate against Carrier as well as Hitchens. He employs the same old apologetics and he has never debunked the fact that scholars do not agree with his beliefs?
.

Various reasons:

1. It debunks your position that historians agree with Berty
2. It shows that Berty didn't debunk that people don't agree with his beliefs
3. It shows that you are wrong in your statements.
4. It shows how they utterly debunked Berty's position even if you decide not to agree with them.

I already made the case. Apologetics contains lies. A professional would never approach Carrier and say "the coincidences in the gospels can only mean the eventsactually happened, there is no other way to explain it?"
That is a lie. It would not happen in a professional context because professionals admit that there already is a thing called the synoptic problem and is answered by some interdependence among the text. Even scholars who are believers would know and start there.
So he is correct is saying apologist, non-scholars will start out with premises that are not truthful.

1. Notice that you offer your personal opinion (which you have every right to have)
2. You really haven't proven that it is lies
3. Don't really care how Carrier expresses his viewpoint. I would express it this way... We have Matthew, Mark (or however wrote it), Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James who agree that it happened. Some were eyewitnesses and others (Luke_) took affidavits (so to speak). In a court of law, these witnesses of the fact would make the fact acceptable.
4. Because you found one Apologetic who may have erred does not mean that all Apologetics are lies. That would be like saying because one doctors had a mis-diagnosis... all doctors are fraudulent.

But you can continue denying it. You can feel free to deny that the earth is round and be a flat-earther too (if you so desire)

First it was my statement.
Second what I said is correct. There are a few actual scholars who believe in young Earth creation and other such ideas. There may be a few historians in the biblical field who are believers in some capacity. I don't know of any? I would read their work. But, clearly they are in the vast minority.
Bart Ehrman himself was a fundamentalist Christian. The process of getting his masters then onto PhD in NT historicity demonstrated to him the religion is a myth.
as Carrier say's generally no one in "the field" (biblical historicity) believes the stories are anything except religious myths from one particular culture. Because at that level one has actually poured over ALL the evidence. Not just WLC videos.

Again... I don't know how many times you want me to say it.. so let me try to say it differently:

1. Who cares if a "few" actual scholars believe in a young earth? That is an interpretative difference but has nothing to do with historicity. (Do you alway misapply information like that?)
2. You have no data to prove who is in the "vast minority". Very subjective and opinion at most.
3. Barty WAS a fundamentalist Christian therefore his contemporary PhD and NT historicity counterparts who remain a fundamentalist obviously disagree with him. Berty is NOT the standard.
4. Carrier... offers his viewpoint - of which I disagree :

The "opinions" also include that Thor son of Odin, Hercules son of Zeus and Krishna son of (that king dude) are myths that people made up and were worshipped by nations. Everything about the Bible also looks to be equally mythical. The "opinion" thing is neither here nor there. This is about reasonable beliefs and evidence.

So when is reality, reality real? False comparisons. That is like saying since there are so many fictional stories about revolutions that brought freedom... obviously the US Revolution was a myth.

But, hey, you can debate... but just because you debate doesn't make you right. I give you a wide berth to be wrong even when you think you are right

Many people started like you but ended with a different understanding.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

What the psychologist said about human emotions was secular evidence.

But it has nothing to do with whether Jesus actually lived or not. A figure(s) upon which the legend of Jesus as found in the gospels was based maybe, even probably did live and likely he was a seditionist against Rome who was captured and crucified and that was the end of his physical life. But myths around a Messiah were rife in Israel at this time. All the Jews were expecting a Messiah around daniel's predicted time to emerge and free the Jews from Roman rule. It's a tailor-made situation for people who fancy themselves Messiahs to start preaching they are God's Chosen.

But then history goes blank far as Jesus goes. Nobody writes about him. We don't know when this Paul character wrote because we haven't any manuscripts earlier than the 2nd Century of any of his epistles. It's speculation to assume he was writing in 55 CE because nobody mentions him until Luke write Acts in the 2nd Century sometime. It's like someone said, "Trying to nail down proof for Jesus or the apostles is like trying to nail Jell-0 to a wall." It just doesn't hold.