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

[Subduction Zone]

It's not just anything is possible, the law of cause and effect also supports God's existence. The fine tuning of the universe does too. God is against sin because God is not the author of confusion. We all know that behaviors that cause confusion are wrong. 3 Big Reasons To Believe God Exists | Reasons for Jesus

There is no "law of cause and effect". Nor does the universe appear to be fine tuned in any way at all that implies that there is a God. You are must recycling old failed arguments.

You are also making the assumption that your version of God, which has been refuted, is the version of God. Your claim about God sowing confusion (another claim on your part that God is evil by the way) is not justified at all.

 

[Bird123]

It angers me that the doctrine of blind faith is promoted so heavily in the Christian religion. I cannot decide if it was born of genuine belief in the merits of believing without seeing ("Because you have seen, Thomas you have believed. Blessed are they who haven't seen and yet have believed.") or if it was, as I believe, concocted as a way to get around the fact that there is no evidence for Jesus and so later churchmen had to invent it as a way of getting around this obvious inopportune reality. Whatever the reason, I came to a point where cynicism took over my life after seeing so much phoniness and deception in the world. It was at that point I knew I couldn't stay in the faith any longer and so I dropped out and became an agnostic deist.

All holy books are written by mankind. That is who they reflect. They teach so many of the petty things mankind holds so dear, claiming the air of total goodness. Since this world is a multilevel classroom, there are many people learning and many levels of understanding.

Perhaps, it's a test of intelligence. Everyone's actions and choices show God and the world where one is at and what one needs to learn.

In a multilevel classroom where everyone has learned different lessons, interaction is key to learning and growth. God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view that one person could have. So often people fight to be all the same, yet it's the diversity that is the strength.

No one should ever fear sharing their view for that brings learning. Further, one should not always try to avoid Drama. I find Drama is where most of the learning takes place.

We are all truly Special. I try to share my special gifts with all around. Though some might get angry and hateful toward me, I remember where the real problem exists.

I copy God when I attempt to place knowledge all around. When others understand all sides, intelligence will pick the best choices. Until then I keep placing it out there.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

All holy books are written by mankind. That is who they reflect. They teach so many of the petty things mankind holds so dear, claiming the air of total goodness. Since this world is a multilevel classroom, there are many people learning and many levels of understanding.

Perhaps, it's a test of intelligence. Everyone's actions and choices show God and the world where one is at and what one needs to learn.

In a multilevel classroom where everyone has learned different lessons, interaction is key to learning and growth. God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view that one person could have. So often people fight to be all the same, yet it's the diversity that is the strength.

No one should ever fear sharing their view for that brings learning. Further, one should not always try to avoid Drama. I find Drama is where most of the learning takes place.

We are all truly Special. I try to share my special gifts with all around. Though some might get angry and hateful toward me, I remember where the real problem exists.

I copy God when I attempt to place knowledge all around. When others understand all sides, intelligence will pick the best choices. Until then I keep placing it out there.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

It's a good metaphor, except when people in the classroom try to foist their way of multiplication on me when I tell them I have my own method and it works. .

 

[joelr]

Ohhh... I thought that is what you are doing since you eradication 1st - 3rd century authors.

I don't follow? I just gave an brief list which examines almost all extra-biblical mentions of Jesus or Christians (by a PhD in the history field) from the first few centuries. So examining those we get no evidence in favor of Christianity being actually true.
I have also made several references to literary analysis of the gospels as well as the OT?
I have covered the origins of the 2nd temple period Jewish mythology, sources for the older creation myths and other stuff as well.
So what early authors am I eradicating?
The entire point is to actually examine all of the source material?

??? Are you making that up?

I have seen historians who disagree with Bart Ehrman on details but there are things in the field that are in consensus. There is no historian who would back up what that person in your video was saying.
Finding some random apologetics and using it to claim there are "anti-Bart Ehrmans" all over is a made-up thing.

Am I suppose to take you word on that?

No, I hear this often as I listen to scholars who have peer-reviewed work and contribute to the field.
I can quote Carrier who has done the most recent Jesus historicity since 1926:

"
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.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death"
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier

Proof?

The whole of your statements are filled with personal opinions in spite of all the material that is available.

Again, you say I'm giving "personal opinion" when I keep sourcing actual historians? Why?

Again you say there is information available yet cannot provide any scholarship and refuse to acknowledge there is a difference between any amateur writing a biased article and and actual field of study where information is peer-reviewed?

Pick one topic, one thing and try to even defend one thing with scholarship.

I have come to the conclusion that basically you have simply taken a position (which you have a right to have) after your personal study. Now you are doubling down and imagining that you position is correct.

No this is incorrect. I am following evidence. As I have stated I have listened to hours of apologetics and listened to what actual scholars have to say.
By actually questioning aoplogetics and listening to what scholarship has to say, the evidence in all aspects is definitive that Christianity is an extention of Jewish mythology.

But I'm not sure why you are going from specific questions to general sweeping statements?
Provide evidence?

However, there is enough evidence to decide otherwise. J. Warner Wallace, a nationally recognized cold-case detective, became a believer because of the evidence that he found as he wrote that journey in a book.

When I read this book I was shocked at how much he just used the same apologetics. For one most of the claims about life and the universe do not mean any myth created by humans is actually true. But the idea that the gospels are eyewitness accounts is an actual lie.
Forget pesky historians and that dam Richard Carrier, just keep to actual Christian scholarship.
There are no illusions by these scholars that the gospels are each independent and eyewitness accounts. 97% of the Greek in Mark is found in Matthew verbatim. This is known as the Synoptic Problem and is answered in academia by the Markan priority - that Mark was the first gospel and the others were written using Mark.
An excellent scholarly article from bible.com addresses the 8 main arguments for why this is the most likely solution:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

"It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence."

Even Christian scholarship is not making these crazy apologetic claims. But this is why in Carrier's review of the movie he says:

"It’s telling that this is what Evangelicals think is a good case for historicity. It requires lying to everyone, by making false statements about the evidence (like that we have independent non-christian sources for Jesus—at all, much less as to anything he said), and by conveniently forgetting to mention inconvenient facts (like that Luke got his blindfold reference by copying Mark; and that Luke and Matthew both copied Mark extensively and verbatim, and Luke copied Matthew extensively and verbatim—or else Luke and Matthew copied some other Greek book extensively and verbatim)."
God's Not Dead 2: Historicity Boogaloo • Richard Carrier

Honestly, this is a terrible reference. You should at least check out Mike Licona as far as apologetics goes.

There are 1 - 3rd century writings that say he wasn't mythical.

Super! And, which writings are those...........?

Then, of course since I gave my life to Jesus, my personal interaction with God has led me to the conclusion that God so loved the world (including you and me) that he gave his only begotten son. That Jesus loved mankind because no great love has a man that he give his life for another. That in that he resurrected from the dead, he not only resurrected me from my dead life-style but has the power to raise me up when I die.

And millions of others personal interaction with God has led them to the love and forgiveness of Lord Krishna. Doesn't make it real.
I know the story. As Joseph Campbell explains it is a great metaphor to follow and inspire to live from your highest self. That is the meaning of all the dying/rising savior gods and Campbell mentions many of them. Unfortunately the literal reading makes people think they get to live forever and the evidence just doesn't support that.

 

[joelr]

Now, you certainly can have your own religion about the world to come or believe that there is nothing to come.

But CERTAINLY, other that your personal opinion, you have offered no substance to deny the existence of Jesus

I don't understand why you keep jumping to sweeping generalizations, posturing and lectures about what I can do? As I found out when I was religious every single part of the religion is completely debunked by scholarship. I have offered some of it. You can deny that all day. Just last post I provided excellent evidence that Acts is fiction and that all extra-biblical mentions of Jesus are not at all confirmation of a real demi-god.

I also provided one of the top NT scholars explaining that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
These are a few pieces of evidence but this is how one finds what is ACTUALLY TRUE?
You just posted a reference to a "detective work" that you think provides evidence for a religion. Yet you refuse to even acknowledge actual evidence that points the other way? Huh. Ok, but you are demonstrably wrong in saying there is no evidence that suggests Jesus was a myth.

Did I not say recently that for some reason religious people will take the words of historian PhD work and literally pretend it doesn't exist?

and the reality that it spread throughout the known world in one generation

Cool, an actual fact. We can analyze this.
First, it took 40 years before the gospels began showing up. A human lifetime in those days was 38 years.
Second, please provide evidence that the entire world knew Christianity in one generation.
Because:
"Christians accounted for approximately 10% of the Roman population by 300, according to some estimates.[98]"

and

"By the latter half of the second century, Christianity had spread east throughout Media, Persia, Parthia, and Bactria."

That isn't the entire world?


Also what actually began spreading in the 2nd century wasn't what you now believe? So that doesn't seem to favor it being true at all (like you are suggesting).

Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia
• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]
In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Many groups were dualistic, maintaining that reality was composed into two radically opposing parts: matter, usually seen as evil, and spirit, seen as good. Proto-orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, held that both the material and spiritual worlds were created by God and were therefore both good, and that this was represented in the unified divine and human natures of Christ."
Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia


So your statement is not true.

 

[joelr]

Yes, Campbell's view was quite interesting to me. It's been decades ago, but I found it enlightening, back then. A nice step along the way.

From Campbell I got the good idea (still in my mid 20s) that of course myths convey truths about life, living life, in metaphorical forms.

Once I had that, then I could gain from them just like a person can gain from a good poem. I was aided. Anyone could be potentially if they listen and hear what he was saying.

I re-read that book every few years. I think his interpretations of the myths are correct and easy to understand. It's just too much to take in at once.

 

[joelr]

Evolution doesn't explain the symbiotic relationship between people and plants in photosynthesis. Evolution, If It Occurred, Is Evidence For God’s Existence | Reasons for Jesus

That book has nothing to do with any religion. Every religion and supernatural cult can point to something like this as "proof" so even if the book makes a good point it doesn't prove Jesus or Krishna.

Bishop's book on 41 reasons why Jesus existed would be proof but didn't provide one single good reason.

 

[Audie]

It's not just anything is possible, the law of cause and effect also supports God's existence. The fine tuning of the universe does too. God is against sin because God is not the author of confusion. We all know that behaviors that cause confusion are wrong. 3 Big Reasons To Believe God Exists | Reasons for Jesus

And of course you only apply cause and effect as lt pleases you.

Prophecy reverses cause and effect.
"Goc" exists with no cause.

 

[Skywalker]

And of course you only apply cause and effect as lt pleases you.

Prophecy reverses cause and effect.
"Goc" exists with no cause.

Bible prophecy came true with Israel developing into a nation. Joseph Smith’s “Fulfilled Prophecies” Debunked | Reasons for Jesus

In short, there is some doubt for Lindsey’s proposal that Smith’s predictions could not have been the result of a perceptive mind rather than prophecy.

Now of course we would acknowledge that the same reasoning could be used, for example, of Jesus’ general prophecy of Jerusalem being destroyed. Much of what Jesus said would have been “common sense” in light of the Roman eagle hovering overhead and the usual tactics of war for the period.

So our analysis, even if it shows that Smith’s observations would be compatible with those of a merely and sufficiently astute observer, would not by themselves disprove any prophetic ability if all of the predictions came through perfectly; it would only admit a viable, naturalistic explanation.

However, let’s have a look now at those details.

“The war would begin with the rebellion of South Carolina.” That this point was fulfilled is indisputable, but was it prescient? Critics point to an event in 1832 that may have influenced Smith’s thinking. Lindsey writes:

“South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of “nullification,” arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union.”

Lindsey counters this by saying that “there was no reasonable expectation of war at that time, or even in 1851 when the prophecy was more widely publicized” and asks whether “anyone [can] offer evidence from writings of American statesmen or scholars in 1832, 1843, or 1851 that make such predictions?”

 

[Onoma]

Why, what are you gonna do with it ?

lol

 

[Audie]

Bible prophecy came true with Israel developing into a nation. Joseph Smith’s “Fulfilled Prophecies” Debunked | Reasons for Jesus

Bible prophecy does not come true.

See Tyre.

But you sidestepped that prophecy
puts effect before cause.

 

[Skywalker]

That book has nothing to do with any religion. Every religion and supernatural cult can point to something like this as "proof" so even if the book makes a good point it doesn't prove Jesus or Krishna.

Bishop's book on 41 reasons why Jesus existed would be proof but didn't provide one single good reason.

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

Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna?
Let’s compare Jesus and Krishna. In The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Graves wrote that Krishna was crucified between two thieves (p. 140). But no Hindu text says Krishna was crucified at all! Still, some wonder if there’s a parallel between the way Jesus and Krishna died. They’ve heard that long before Jesus’ death, there was an old Indian myth about the Hindu god Krishna being pierced and resurrected. Really?

It does sound curious when you put it that way. After all, Christians link Isaiah 53:5to Jesus’ death by crucifixion: “But he was pierced for our transgressions…with his wounds we are healed” (Compare this with 1 Peter 2:24). But here’s the thing: All things can seem similar if you ignore the differences!

Read for yourself what the Indian epic-poem called the Mahabharata (Book 16: Mausala Parva) says about Krishna. He wasn’t crucified. Instead, he got shot in a hunting accident!

“The hunter, mistaking [Krishna]…for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara [the hunter] beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of [Krishna, who] comforted him and then ascended upwards…When he reached Heaven [he] met the deities…”

Yes, Krishna was pierced. But he was pierced by an arrow when he got shot in the foot! Krishna wasn’t crucified. And he certainly wasn’t crucified between two thieves!

So was Jesus’ death by crucifixion copied from Krishna? Nope. Turns out, there’s no crucifixion in the Krishna story at all. We just don’t see a meaningful parallel between Jesus and Krishna in this regard.

 

[Skywalker]

Bible prophecy does not come true.

See Tyre.

But you sidestepped that prophecy
puts effect before cause.

Bible verses that sound like the second coming of Jesus was in the first century are taken out of context. 13 Historical Reasons For Early Dating Of The Gospel | Reasons for Jesus

5. The destruction of the temple and the second coming
This might be the most convincing proof of them all. The passages in Matthew that describe the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus’ second coming seemingly leave no time between the two events. Reading Mark and Luke, the interval between the two events is brief. Skeptics like Bertrand Russell and Bart Ehrman have been quick to pounce on this as if Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

I’m not here to give a theological explanation, although many have been offered throughout the centuries. The association of the destruction of Jerusalem with the return of Jesus wouldn’t exist if the composition of the Gospels was after the destruction of the Temple. Surely there would’ve been some explanation or indication that the two events were not to stand in so close juxtaposition.

 

[Audie]

Bible verses that sound like the second coming of Jesus was in the first century are taken out of context. 13 Historical Reasons For Early Dating Of The Gospel | Reasons for Jesus

Did you know a conversation involves people
staying on the same subject? You constantly
change it.

 

[Skywalker]

Did you know a conversation involves people
staying on the same subject? You constantly
change it.

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

Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?

Question: "Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?"

Answer: At first glance, the prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to refer to a human king. The city of Tyre was the recipient of some of the strongest prophetic condemnations in the Bible (Isaiah 23:1–18; Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1–11; Ezekiel 26:1– 28:19; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9, 10). Tyre was known for building its wealth by exploiting its neighbors. Ancient writers referred to Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. Tyre was a center of religious idolatry and sexual immorality. The biblical prophets rebuked Tyre for its pride brought on by its great wealth and strategic location. Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to be a particularly strong indictment against the king of Tyre in the prophet Ezekiel’s day, rebuking the king for his insatiable pride and greed.

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12–13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).

Like Satan, the human king of Tyre was prideful. Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the king of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the king of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others. But just as Satan’s pride led to his fall and will eventually lead to his eternal destruction, so will the city of Tyre lose its wealth, power, and status. Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre’s total destruction was fulfilled partially by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17–21) and ultimately by Alexander the Great.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

When one can reinterpret prophecies in any way that they like they make all prophecies worthless. When you ask what are the odds of this prophesy being fulfilled the odds are 1 when one abuses them in this manner.

You need to learn how to read your Bible properly. There is no excuse to abuse the Tyre prophesy in such a manner besides the fact that it fails abysmally.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't follow? I just gave an brief list which examines almost all extra-biblical mentions of Jesus or Christians (by a PhD in the history field) from the first few centuries. So examining those we get no evidence in favor of Christianity being actually true.
I have also made several references to literary analysis of the gospels as well as the OT?
I have covered the origins of the 2nd temple period Jewish mythology, sources for the older creation myths and other stuff as well.
So what early authors am I eradicating?
The entire point is to actually examine all of the source material?



I have seen historians who disagree with Bart Ehrman on details but there are things in the field that are in consensus. There is no historian who would back up what that person in your video was saying.
Finding some random apologetics and using it to claim there are "anti-Bart Ehrmans" all over is a made-up thing.


No, I hear this often as I listen to scholars who have peer-reviewed work and contribute to the field.
I can quote Carrier who has done the most recent Jesus historicity since 1926:

"
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.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death"
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier



Again, you say I'm giving "personal opinion" when I keep sourcing actual historians? Why?

Again you say there is information available yet cannot provide any scholarship and refuse to acknowledge there is a difference between any amateur writing a biased article and and actual field of study where information is peer-reviewed?

Pick one topic, one thing and try to even defend one thing with scholarship.

No this is incorrect. I am following evidence. As I have stated I have listened to hours of apologetics and listened to what actual scholars have to say.
By actually questioning aoplogetics and listening to what scholarship has to say, the evidence in all aspects is definitive that Christianity is an extention of Jewish mythology.

But I'm not sure why you are going from specific questions to general sweeping statements?
Provide evidence?


When I read this book I was shocked at how much he just used the same apologetics. For one most of the claims about life and the universe do not mean any myth created by humans is actually true. But the idea that the gospels are eyewitness accounts is an actual lie.
Forget pesky historians and that dam Richard Carrier, just keep to actual Christian scholarship.
There are no illusions by these scholars that the gospels are each independent and eyewitness accounts. 97% of the Greek in Mark is found in Matthew verbatim. This is known as the Synoptic Problem and is answered in academia by the Markan priority - that Mark was the first gospel and the others were written using Mark.
An excellent scholarly article from bible.com addresses the 8 main arguments for why this is the most likely solution:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

"It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence."

Even Christian scholarship is not making these crazy apologetic claims. But this is why in Carrier's review of the movie he says:

"It’s telling that this is what Evangelicals think is a good case for historicity. It requires lying to everyone, by making false statements about the evidence (like that we have independent non-christian sources for Jesus—at all, much less as to anything he said), and by conveniently forgetting to mention inconvenient facts (like that Luke got his blindfold reference by copying Mark; and that Luke and Matthew both copied Mark extensively and verbatim, and Luke copied Matthew extensively and verbatim—or else Luke and Matthew copied some other Greek book extensively and verbatim)."
God's Not Dead 2: Historicity Boogaloo • Richard Carrier

Honestly, this is a terrible reference. You should at least check out Mike Licona as far as apologetics goes.




Super! And, which writings are those...........?



And millions of others personal interaction with God has led them to the love and forgiveness of Lord Krishna. Doesn't make it real.
I know the story. As Joseph Campbell explains it is a great metaphor to follow and inspire to live from your highest self. That is the meaning of all the dying/rising savior gods and Campbell mentions many of them. Unfortunately the literal reading makes people think they get to live forever and the evidence just doesn't support that.

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

1. Nothing to the Contrary
If Jesus really were a non-existent figure of history it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would have made this known at some point. In fact the most hostile group towards Jesus and early Christianity were the Jews, yet they affirmed Jesus’ existence by trying to accuse the disciples of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb (Matthew 28:13, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian’s On Spectacles, 30)).

We also find anti-Jesus material in the much later Jewish Talmud accusing him of treachery and leading Israel astray. Those that hated Christianity the most just had to discover that Jesus was a figment of the early Christians imagination and expose it, and that would be the end of Christianity, however, not once does this ever happen.

Take, for example, the polemic against the empty tomb. Paul Maier in his work ‘In the Fullness of Time’ tells us that: “Jewish polemic shared with Christians the conviction that the sepulcher was empty, but gave natural explanations for it. And such positive evidence within a hostile source is the strongest kind off evidence.”

We should ask ourselves, why did the Jews try to explain away Jesus’ tomb if there was no Jesus in the first place? It’s almost certainly because Jesus existed. To continue with Paul Maier: “Now you can argue about whether he was the Son of God or not, you can argue about the supernatural aspects of his life, but in terms of the historical character there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary and all the evidence is in the favor.”

 

[Skywalker]

When one can reinterpret prophecies in any way that they like they make all prophecies worthless. When you ask what are the odds of this prophesy being fulfilled the odds are 1 when one abuses them in this manner.

You need to learn how to read your Bible properly. There is no excuse to abuse the Tyre prophesy in such a manner besides the fact that it fails abysmally.

The prophecy about Alexander the Great invading Tyre did come true. It's a historical fact that Alexander the Great invaded Tyre.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The prophecy about Alexander the Great invading Tyre did come true. It's a historical fact that Alexander the Great invaded Tyre.

Sorry that was never ever the prediction . You need to read the story. It was a prediction about a Nebuchadnezzar and no one else. It would help if you knew the history of Tyre. It had a history of being attacked and overrun in the past. That is why it was heavily fortified. Guess what happens when an island is attacked fairly often? It loses now and then. It is hardly a prediction.


This is a problem for believers in prophecy. Either the prophecies in the Bible fail quite often. Or they have to be diluted to the point where they are worthless.

Can you answer this question: Are the prophecies worthless themselves or are there some seriously failed ones?

 

[Kenny]

I don't follow? I just gave an brief list which examines almost all extra-biblical mentions of Jesus or Christians (by a PhD in the history field) from the first few centuries. So examining those we get no evidence in favor of Christianity being actually true.

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

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.

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.

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’."

Eccesiastical History, 4:14

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

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.

have seen historians who disagree with Bart Ehrman on details but there are things in the field that are in consensus. .

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.

No, I hear this often as I listen to scholars who have peer-reviewed work and contribute to the field.
I can quote Carrier who has done the most recent Jesus historicity since 1926:

"
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.

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.

Again, you say I'm giving "personal opinion" when I keep sourcing actual historians? Why?

.

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

No this is incorrect. I am following evidence. As I have stated I have listened to hours of apologetics and listened to what actual scholars have to say.
?

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.

There are no illusions by these scholars that the gospels are each independent and eyewitness accounts. 97% of the Greek in Mark is found in Matthew verbatim. This is known as the Synoptic Problem and is answered in academia by the Markan priority - that Mark was the first gospel and the others were written using Mark.
An excellent scholarly article from bible.com addresses the 8 main arguments for why this is the most likely solution:

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

"It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence."

Even Christian scholarship is not making these crazy apologetic claims. But this is why in Carrier's review of the movie he says:

"It’s telling that this is what Evangelicals think is a good case for historicity. It requires lying to everyone, by making false statements about the evidence (like that we have independent non-christian sources for Jesus—at all, much less as to anything he said), and by conveniently forgetting to mention inconvenient facts (like that Luke got his blindfold reference by copying Mark; and that Luke and Matthew both copied Mark extensively and verbatim, and Luke copied Matthew extensively and verbatim—or else Luke and Matthew copied some other Greek book extensively and verbatim)."
God's Not Dead 2: Historicity Boogaloo • Richard Carrier

Honestly, this is a terrible reference. You should at least check out Mike Licona as far as apologetics goes.

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.

And millions of others personal interaction with God has led them to the love and forgiveness of Lord Krishna. Doesn't make it real.
I know the story. As Joseph Campbell explains it is a great metaphor to follow and inspire to live from your highest self. That is the meaning of all the dying/rising savior gods and Campbell mentions many of them. Unfortunately the literal reading makes people think they get to live forever and the evidence just doesn't support that.

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

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:

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.