Your best argument that god exists

[Jumi]

God is the creator of all things. Jesus is God by virtue of his Resurrection (among other things), not as criteria, as Skwim erroneously suggested.

Yes, I've heard that this is what Christians believe over and over. That's proof of nothing and it has nothing to do with our discussion. I'm not Skwim or outhouse and haven't followed your discussions them. I may or may not agree with anything they've said. Is that understood?

The popular myth theory, invented in the 19th century, is a lie and I have only described 2 out of 6 reasons why it is a lie.

It's nice that you're interested in historical views. How about today's views?

Either Jesus is totally insane followed around by a sophisticated special effects crew, or He is the Son of God. The evidence in favor of the latter is overwhelming, and you have the freedom to remain in the dark and ignore the hard facts.

Not really. People wrote about all kinds of miraculous events all around the world that supposedly happened. There's no proof of any of it ever happening. If one account is true, are all accounts true? Did Mahabharata need a special effects crew? Did Thor really throw hammers at giants?

People still tell stories of UFOs and other things that likely never happened. There are even religions formed on those stories. Do you believe all these must have happened?

"matter existing for all eternity" is a metaphysical opinion not supported by cosmologists and most atheists could care less. "God existing for all eternity" is a theological statement that is far more reasonable than your unscientific opinion.

Theological statements only make sense if you believe in them and the religion they are based on.

Which ones? Quote, please.

I'm referring to the ground of being and your own quotes.

You have the freedom to believe whatever you want.

So do you. That's why we can discuss things.

How you get pantheism out of Transcendent Signifyer or Ground of Being is anybody's guess. Being:sub sub menu on topic of Being itself

How you get pantheism out of belief that atoms exist and interact with each other is also anybody's guess.

Organic chemistry is a chemistry subdiscipline involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials, i.e., matter in its various forms that contain carbon atoms. IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW ATOMS ARRANGED THEMSELVES INTO ORGANIC COMPOUNDS BY THEMSELVES.

Of course I know what organic chemistry is, I was the one who brought it up. You don't need to quote dictionary for things you've just looked up. The molecules arrange themselves given the right set of circumstances.

The answer can only be a metaphysical answer.

There's no reason why it can only be a metaphysical one, except that you want it to be one.

Evolution is the science of the fossil record, nothing more, so that is not the answer either.

You are wrong there. Evolution doesn't need the fossil record. You would do well to educate yourself on it. Even your pope knows the evolution theory is true.

Physical matter is simply not smart enough to evolve into organic compounds without some Outside help, or Initial Intervention that would allow it to happen over billions of years.

It requires no smarts from atoms to organize into organic molecules. Organic compounds can be synthesized in the lab with "outside help" and they can occur naturally in places where there is no life.

Sorry. What I meant was metaphysical or philosophical arguments for the existence of God are valid arguments. Atheists smugly think there aren't any.

Nice to be called smug before I have a chance to say what I think. I guess from your other comments also that you want to maintain an aggressive polarizing conversation. That's all right.

Now, can you show me one valid argument?

I'll make it again. God exists. Jesus is God. He rose from the dead. There is sufficient evidence of this event, as there is with any historical figure, even without the Bible

There really isn't proof that he rose from the dead. Especially outside of the Canonical Gospels, which aren't proof unless you choose to accept their narratives.

The legacy of this event has continued for 2000 years.

I know, that's how my ancestors were converted by the sword to Catholicism.

The Resurrection has extended through time in various forms, but I will discuss that after I demolish the myth theory

Well you have great belief in yourself, I'll grant you that.

The atheist tends towards relativism, and it gets very scary when it enters the political arena.

Completely irrelevant. We're not discussing politics here. You seem to be convinced that you have absolute truth, but to outsiders it seems like a bunch of hot air, given those small snipes you constantly do and defensive attacks before others can say what they think. You've already dehumanized me well. Not that I agree with you, but to you I must seem like some demon from another universe if I just say I don't believe in your God. You're ready with your sword drawn.

It's a satire, it's supposed to be ridiculous, but no one can refute it with any intellectual rigor, just mindless one liners. It's no more ridiculous than atheism.

It's ridiculous, you're right about that. But as to rigor there, I can only say that you seem to be a relativist as far as that is concerned.

 

[outhouse]

God is the source of all things.

Would be great if you had more evidence then mythology to back it up.

 

[kepha31]

It's nice that you're interested in historical views. How about today's views?

Todays views about the Resurrection being myth is from the 19th century, it's called Modernism, aka, the Synthesis of all Heresies. It has been exposed and refuted back then. Here LAMENTABILI SANE
and here PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
Words like “God,” “Resurrection,” “Trinity,” and “salvation” are all used by the Modernist, but what they mean by these terms has nothing to do with what these terms have traditionally meant in the history of the Church. For this reason, Modernists may appear to be orthodox, but one eventually discovers their true nature once they dig more deeply into the meaning of the terminology they use.

Not really. People wrote about all kinds of miraculous events all around the world that supposedly happened. There's no proof of any of it ever happening. If one account is true, are all accounts true? Did Mahabharata need a special effects crew? Did Thor really throw hammers at giants?

There is plenty of proof for the Resurrection, you choose to ignore it. Julius Müller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death. This has been pointed out and no one has put forth an example. As the saying goes, "Put up or shut up." "People wrote about all kinds of miraculous events all around the world that supposedly happened" is just forum flatulence.

People still tell stories of UFOs and other things that likely never happened. There are even religions formed on those stories. Do you believe all these must have happened?

I'm not the one confusing myth from fact. If the historical record is based on myth, then so is every ancient figure in history. Your premise is false.

Theological statements only make sense if you believe in them and the religion they are based on.

That's called Relativism which was spawned by Martin Luther. It's a trap that atheism falls into.

Relativism is the philosophy that denies absolutes or what is really true. There are four kinds of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and religious. The metaphysical relativism is the claim that there are no absolutes in reality; epistemological is that there are no absolutes in knowledge; morality is the denial of moral absolutes; and religious is the claim that there is no true religion...
It is refuted here. http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p17.htm​

How you get pantheism out of belief that atoms exist and interact with each other is also anybody's guess.

Atoms interact with each other, that much is obvious, but giving them the power to produce organic compounds and eventually life (I don't mean amino acids in a test tube) all on their own is granting atoms a power that even humans don't have. It's Deo-Atomism.

Of course I know what organic chemistry is, I was the one who brought it up. You don't need to quote dictionary for things you've just looked up. The molecules arrange themselves given the right set of circumstances.

Circumstances just happen independently?

There's no reason why it can only be a metaphysical one, except that you want it to be one.

Good. Then there is no reason why atheism must flatly reject all metaphysical and philosophical arguments as being invalid.

You are wrong there. Evolution doesn't need the fossil record. You would do well to educate yourself on it. Even your pope knows the evolution theory is true.

Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

It requires no smarts from atoms to organize into organic molecules. Organic compounds can be synthesized in the lab with "outside help" and they can occur naturally in places where there is no life.

That still doesn't explain where atoms came from.

Now, can you show me one valid argument?

The Resurrection, and I am dismantling the myth theory.

There really isn't proof that he rose from the dead. Especially outside of the Canonical Gospels, which aren't proof unless you choose to accept their narratives.

Rejecting the historical record isn't proof, it's revisionism.

I know, that's how my ancestors were converted by the sword to Catholicism.

Don't even go there. The Church has never recognized forced conversions as valid. I'd be happy to discuss Protestant propaganda but not here.

Completely irrelevant. We're not discussing politics here. You seem to be convinced that you have absolute truth, but to outsiders it seems like a bunch of hot air, given those small snipes you constantly do and defensive attacks before others can say what they think. You've already dehumanized me well. Not that I agree with you, but to you I must seem like some demon from another universe if I just say I don't believe in your God. You're ready with your sword drawn.

I'm not trying to dehumanize you and I am sorry if you took it that way. Atheists don't like getting a taste of their own medicine so they whine and cry when someone stands up to their bullying.

 

[kepha31]

Would be great if you had more evidence then mythology to back it up.

It would be great if you had more than unsubstantiated assertions. See post 178 and 193 and prove anything I said is mythical.

Produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death.

You can't, so you should stop dismissing everything I say as myth.

 

[Jumi]

Todays views about the Resurrection being myth is from the 19th century, it's called Modernism, aka, the Synthesis of all Heresies. It has been exposed and refuted back then. Here LAMENTABILI SANE
and here PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

It's nice to you are still weeding out the heretics in your Church. I don't know why you brought these up though, since I'm not Catholic or any strawman Modernist.

Words like “God,” “Resurrection,” “Trinity,” and “salvation” are all used by the Modernist, but what they mean by these terms has nothing to do with what these terms have traditionally meant in the history of the Church. For this reason, Modernists may appear to be orthodox, but one eventually discovers their true nature once they dig more deeply into the meaning of the terminology they use.

I'm not Christian so how you use this terminology is up to your religion and the protestants, orthodox to fight over. It seems strange to even bring these up. To me it just shows how divided Christianity is.

There is plenty of proof for the Resurrection, you choose to ignore it. Julius Müller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death. This has been pointed out and no one has put forth an example.

Well that is silly. I can imagine it being a 19th century misuse of logic. Why didn't non-Christians write about these events at that time?

As the saying goes, "Put up or shut up." "People wrote about all kinds of miraculous events all around the world that supposedly happened" is just forum flatulence.

How unpleasant.

There are many people who believe in UFO stories like what supposedly happened the Betty and Barney.

Barney and Betty Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not the one confusing myth from fact. If the historical record is based on myth, then so is every ancient figure in history. Your premise is false.

Jesus may have existed, but I don't agree with the Gospels that were written after him. Since you brought this up I will give my view: they are more likely to be exaggeration by his followers. No historical figure ever was like history knows them, you know? Ever met anyone who had an article or biography written about them... even in today's world they aren't like the books tell about them.

That's called Relativism which was spawned by Martin Luther. It's a trap that atheism falls into.

I don't know why you're still going on about relativism. Prove relativism was "spawned by Martin Luther". Now it's your turn put up or shut up, as you said arbitrarily above.

Atoms interact with each other, that much is obvious, but giving them the power to produce organic compounds and eventually life (I don't mean amino acids in a test tube) all on their own is granting atoms a power that even humans don't have. It's Deo-Atomism.

I guess everyone worships the things they know in your opinion? Worship and gods are meaningless the way you use it for rhetoric.

I know many Christians who know organic compounds form without life being involved. I guess they are deo-atomists because of their education! We can observe organic compounds in space... this is like you are living in 19th Century.

Circumstances just happen independently?

Yes. As we can observe, there is plenty of organic compounds in space.

Good. Then there is no reason why atheism must flatly reject all metaphysical and philosophical arguments as being invalid.

Well atheism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's just lack of belief in God. I don't know why you think it's something larger than life.

Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

Do you think your pope is a heretic?

That still doesn't explain where atoms came from.

We do not know. They might have always been here. There's no reason to think they were needed to be magically created by someone.

Rejecting the historical record isn't proof, it's revisionism.

You don't read a lot of history if you agree with every ancient writer.

Don't even go there. The Church has never recognized forced conversions as valid. I'd be happy to discuss Protestant propaganda but not here.

Oh really? It doesn't change the fact that my ancestors were forced to convert.

I'm not trying to dehumanize you and I am sorry if you took it that way. Atheists don't like getting a taste of their own medicine so they whine and cry when someone stands up to their bullying.

Yes you are giving me some whine and cry about things you assume I believe based on 19th century dialogues and other people. My perception from this discussion is that you can't separate an individual who doesn't believe in your God from another and are ready to attack them with some random things you've read on apologetic sites.

 

[kepha31]

Refuting the Myth Theory​

I submit the Resurrection as proof for the existence of God. The myth theory is a Modernist heresy that attempts to explain it away.

To recap previous posts:

(1) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths.

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop.
These points were condensed and edited in previous posts from http://www.strangenotions.com/refuting-the-myth-theory-6-reasons-why-the-resurrection-accounts-are-true/.
moving on...

(3) The myth theory has two layers.The first layer is the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead. The second, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from the dead. The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer. The two-layer cake theory has the first layer made entirely of air—and hot air at that.

William Lane Craig summarizes the lack of evidence:

"The Gospels are a miraculous story, and we have no other story handed down to us than that contained in the Gospels....The letters of Barnabas and Clement refer to Jesus' miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus' miracles. Ignatius speaks of the resurrection. Quadratus reports that persons were still living who had been healed by Jesus. Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ. No relic of a non-miraculous story exists. That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions. These facts show that the story in the Gospels was in substance the same story that Christians had at the beginning. This means...that the resurrection of Jesus was always a part of the story." (Apologetics, chapter 6)
​

(4) A little detail, seldom noticed, is significant in distinguishing the Gospels from myth: the first witnesses of the resurrection were women. In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.

​

(5) The New Testament could not be myth misinterpreted and confused with fact because it specifically distinguishes the two and repudiates the mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16).

(4) A little detail, seldom noticed, is significant in distinguishing the Gospels from myth: the first witnesses of the resurrection were women. In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.

(5) The New Testament could not be myth misinterpreted and confused with fact because it specifically distinguishes the two and repudiates the mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16). Since it explicitly says it is not myth, if it is myth it is a deliberate lie rather than myth. The dilemma still stands. It is either truth or lie, whether deliberate (conspiracy) or non-deliberate (hallucination). There is no escape from the horns of this dilemma. Once a child asks whether Santa Claus is real, your yes becomes a lie, not myth, if he is not literally real. Once the New Testament distinguishes myth from fact, it becomes a lie if the resurrection is not fact.

(6) Dr. William Lane Craig has summarized the traditional textual arguments with such clarity, condensation, and power that I'll quote him here at length... (see above link)
The following arguments (rearranged and outlined from Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection) prove two things: first, that the Gospels were written by the disciples, not later myth-makers, and second, that the Gospels we have today are essentially the same as the originals.

(A) Proof that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses:

1. Internal evidence, from the Gospels themselves:
(7 points listed)
We may conclude that there is no more reason to doubt that the Gospels come from the traditional authors than there is to doubt that the works of Philo or Josephus are authentic, exceptthat the Gospels contain supernatural events.

2. External evidence:
(4 points listed)
(B) Proof that the Gospels we have today are the same Gospels originally written:
(8 points listed)

"Many events which are regarded as firmly established historically have
(1) far less documentary evidence than many biblical events;
(2) and the documents on which historians rely for much secular history are written much longer after the event than many records of biblical events;
(3) furthermore, we have many more copies of biblical narratives than of secular histories; and
(4) the surviving copies are much earlier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based.

If the biblical narratives did not contain accounts of miraculous events, biblical history would probably be regarded as much more firmly established than most of the history of, say, classical Greece and Rome." (Thinking About Religion, p. 84-85)

Conclusion: Higher Criticism, as taught by present day Modernists in universities, is a way of sanitizing horse muffins.

 

[Koldo]

Jesus the Christ is God, evidenced by the Resurrection and the rise of the Church that followed It. Arguments opposed to the Resurrection have proven to be stupid, or weak at best.
The myth theory is just that: a theory, and it doesn't hold water. Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history.

I remain unconvinced.
Please prove that the ressurection is regarded as an historical event among mainstream historians.

 

[kepha31]

I don't know why you're still going on about relativism. Prove relativism was "spawned by Martin Luther". Now it's your turn put up or shut up, as you said arbitrarily above.

For the Protestant, the individual rejects the Magisterium established by Christ and replaces it with the individual. Given this view, it was only a matter of time that the individual would be elevated to a position to interpret and define all matters of faith and morals for himself.

I know many Christians who know organic compounds form without life being involved. I guess they are deo-atomists because of their education! We can observe organic compounds in space... this is like you are living in 19th Century.

Knowing about organic compounds has nothing to do with believing atoms have supernatural powers. Your just ranting.

Yes. As we can observe, there is plenty of organic compounds in space.

So what. Does that make them smart?

Well atheism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's just lack of belief in God. I don't know why you think it's something larger than life.

I'm simply trying to answer the OP because atheists think there aren't any.

Do you think your pope is a heretic?

No. Much has been written by several popes on evolution. I'm a theistic/evolutionist/humanist but I think atheistic evolution is intellectually bankrupt.

Oh really? It doesn't change the fact that my ancestors were forced to convert.

This is the second time you brought up this red herring. Name the ethnicity, the country, and the year of this alleged forced conversion. It is true there were forced conversions, I am not denying that. What you cannot accept is that the Church does not recognize forced conversions. There was never any order from the Church to force conversions on anybody. It's totally contrary to Church teachings. Kings, the state, the rich and powerful did so for their own greedy ends, but no document exists to support this anti-Catholic canard. Post a thread on the subject someplace else.

Yes you are giving me some whine and cry about things you assume I believe based on 19th century dialogues and other people. My perception from this discussion is that you can't separate an individual who doesn't believe in your God from another and are ready to attack them with some random things you've read on apologetic sites.

No, I'm refuting Modernism, which is sanitized with terms like "Higher Criticism" and mindlessly dismissed as myths with no supporting evidence.

 

[Jumi]

For the Protestant, the individual rejects the Magisterium established by Christ and replaces it with the individual. Given this view, it was only a matter of time that the individual would be elevated to a position to interpret and define all matters of faith and morals for himself.

And this kind of thinking long pre-existed your faith. Why would you need to hunt for heretics periodically if it didn't pre-exist Luther. You were just plain wrong. To a non-Catholic your Catholic invention never meant anything.

Knowing about organic compounds has nothing to do with believing atoms have supernatural powers. Your just ranting.

Then what is the deo-atomism you keep ranting about? It makes no sense.

So what. Does that make them smart?

Are rocks smart?

I'm simply trying to answer the OP because atheists think there aren't any.

You may accept some. But they aren't proof in a real sense. You have to be taught into a faith to accept them.

No. Much has been written by several popes on evolution. I'm a theistic/evolutionist/humanist but I think atheistic evolution is intellectually bankrupt.

I think theistic evolution is adding unnecessary things to something natural.

This is the second time you brought up this red herring.

So it's a red herring when you want your revision to stick as history.

Name the ethnicity, the country, and the year of this alleged forced conversion. It is true there were forced conversions, I am not denying that. What you cannot accept is that the Church does not recognize forced conversions.

Indeed there were and a lot of them, followed by looting, destruction and building churches to the newly conquered areas. The Protestants continued the work of rooting out paganism after the Catholics had converted to that religion.

There was never any order from the Church to force conversions on anybody. It's totally contrary to Church teachings. Kings, the state, the rich and powerful did so for their own greedy ends, but no document exists to support this anti-Catholic canard. Post a thread on the subject someplace else.

If the Pope didn't accept them, you'd think he would have objected to them or was he a moral relativist?

No, I'm refuting Modernism, which is sanitized with terms like "Higher Criticism" and mindlessly dismissed as myths with no supporting evidence.

Are you refuting Barney and Betty Hill's accounts as well?

 

[McBell]

God is the source of all things.

More god of the gaps...

As a theist, I KNOW God created everything out of nothing, which makes more sense than the atheist who doesn't care. I never heard of "god of the gaps". Is that some new atheist buzz word?

So you admit you "argue" from ignorance?

If God "came into being", then he would not be God but another item in the universe.

What this statement does is dismantle your preconceived notions of a god that I don't accept either. But I don't see you asking any questions, yet you accuse me of generating questions I can't answer. This is a good example of why debating with some atheists is so pointless.

All that statement does is ratify the preconceptions of your choir.
It is completely worthless outside your choir.
Your thinking that statement is some sort of ace in hole for your "argument" merely shows just how out of touch with reality you are.

Nice try though.

Thomas Aquinas is nothing to be afraid of. "god of the gaps" as you put it means you haven't read any of his work, or have read biased critiques from secular atheist professors.

Seeing as you have already admitted you have no idea what the "god of the gaps" is, you are in no position to tell me what I have and have not read.

That you feel you can tell me what is not a god of the gaps argument without even knowing what a god of the gaps argument is reveals your dishonesty and desperation.

20th WCP: The Origin of the Universe and Contemporary Cosmology and Philosophy
Atheism Hits a Brick Wall; The First Law of Thermodynamics
Scientists Abandon the Oscillating Universe Theory

So sorry.
I must apologize for I was not clear.

Please present credible peer reviewed science sources.

The first link is nothing but a philosophy piece and the other two are to the same pseudoscience book.

 

[outhouse]

Produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death.

Jesus.

He was a Galilean who died, and mythology grew after his death and martyrdom.

He was labeled as "son of god" which was the EXACT term the Emperor had before Jesus was even born. And the unknown authors of the bible who were far removed from Jesus actual life, competed against the Emperors divinity naming Jesus "son of god" the exact same way the Emperor was the "son of god"

 

[outhouse]

(1) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths.

They are exactly the same. Theology always had mythology.

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop.

Plenty of time.

Dr. William Lane Craig

Is worthless in a historical debate

(A) Proof that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses:

That is unsubstantiated apologetic rhetoric


ALL academia states the gospel authors are unknown.


It would be helpful if you actually took a class and knew what you were debating when it comes to history.

Apologetic statements are not historically credible

 

[outhouse]

We may conclude that there is no more reason to doubt that the Gospels come from the traditional authors

Only if we lack credible education.

That is only an apologetic stance you carry with no credibility. Its why you cannot source your statements with credibility.

I can provide Yale professors on the NT that state the authors are unknown by MOST scholars today.

 

[outhouse]

I submit the Resurrection as proof for the existence of God

Any chance you could supply something historically credible?


That is a theological apologetic statement hat carries no historical credibility at all.

 

[outhouse]

God is the source of all things.

Which Israelite god are you talking about?

El?
Yahweh?
Baal?
Asherah?

 

[raph]

What if God would BE a God of the gaps? If there was a gap in science, that noone can, or will be able to explain without God. Then the God of the gaps argument would be invalid.

The more I think about it, I come more and more to the conclusion, that God is the God of the gaps. Why not believe in the God of the gaps? Does science not proof, that there are some gaps, that we will never find out? (Like the time before time, or the exact position of electrons before measuring)

In my definition of God, he must be a God of the gaps. He is unknowable in his essence, therefore he is inside an unknowable gap, therefore God of the gaps.

Jesus.

He was a Galilean who died, and mythology grew after his death and martyrdom.

He was labeled as "son of god" which was the EXACT term the Emperor had before Jesus was even born. And the unknown authors of the bible who were far removed from Jesus actual life, competed against the Emperors divinity naming Jesus "son of god" the exact same way the Emperor was the "son of god"

So his claim was, that there are no other myths that evolved in 20 years. And you say, that Jesus myth developed in 20 years. You back it up, by saying that the emporer was called son of God. I expect more from atheist, really.

You are basically saying, that a large group of people got tortured and killed extraordinairily, to take the "son of God" title from the emperor and apply it to a carpenter. People must have been veeery bored back then.

 

[outhouse]

You back it up, by saying that the emporer was called son of God. I expect more from atheist, really.

Then you misunderstand.

Im pointing out he was human, and it was normal for people to call other people divine at will.

You are basically saying, that a large group of people got tortured and killed extraordinairily, to take the "son of God" title from the emperor and apply it to a carpenter. People must have been veeery bored back then.

No one took nothing.

They were competing against the Emperor, proselytizing the people who worshipped him.

Bored? no. Looking for something better then worshipping a corrupt politician. Judaism was popular all through the Diaspora [roman empire] for hundreds of years before Jesus. But the people did not want to covert fully. Jesus death started a movement that let these people pervert Judaism and keep the one all powerful god by worship through the son.

 

[kepha31]

kepha31 said: ↑
Produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death.

Jesus.
He was a Galilean who died, and mythology grew after his death and martyrdom.

That's the point. Jesus is the only exception to what you call mythology. He doesn't fit the standard of myth development which always takes much longer than 30 years to develop, and you can't name one great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death. Until you can find one, other than Jesus, my argument stands.

He was labeled as "son of god" which was the EXACT term the Emperor had before Jesus was even born. And the unknown authors of the bible who were far removed from Jesus actual life, competed against the Emperors divinity naming Jesus "son of god" the exact same way the Emperor was the "son of god"

The term looks the same but Christians didn't use the term in a pantheistic context.
The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context (Oxford University Press, 2011). by Michael Peppard. He argues the same thing you do, and he is wrong. Here is a commissioned review:

Essentially, Peppard contends that Roman emperor-cult, and particularly the title of “son of god” (Latin: divi filius; Greek: θεοῦ υιός), and additionally the practice of adoption of a son as imperial successor, are significant factors to take account of in engaging early Christian affirmations about Jesus’ divine sonship. On the one hand, this basic view is nothing new...
1920's)...
...Peppard seems to me to fudge things a bit when it comes to judging the likely attitude of Jews to emperor-cult. True, we should not over-simplify matters. But, to cite only a few illustrative data, we know that Jews firmly avoided any image of the emperor in the Jerusalem temple, that instead of offerings to the emperor there was sacrifice on behalf of the emperor there, that masses of Jews rioted when Roman troops attempted to bring the cultic emblems of their legions into Jerusalem, and that there was protest and the threat of outright revolt when Caligula ordered his image to be set up in the Jerusalem temple. Certainly, Jews (and Christians as well) typically sought to avoid confrontation with imperial authorities over emperor-cult or anything else, and negotiated their existence as best they could, but we should not obfuscate things. Unlike many (most?) others in the time, they did not typically take part in giving cultus to the emperor, and indeed seem to have viewed it as only one of the many idolatrous practices of pagans...
...As I've indicated now for some 25 years, what we require is some other group of the time that practiced a “monotheistic” cultic exclusivity (worship of one deity only) and also incorporated a second distinguishable figure into their devotional practice in the programmatic way that Jesus was in earliest Christian circles. Neither emperor-cult nor any other known phenomena in the Roman religious environment provides us such a parallel. Those who worshiped the dead and/or living emperors were simply accommodating one more of the many deities that Roman-era people generally treated as worthy of worship. The idea of a divine ruler is neither innovative nor remarkable in the history of the ancient near east or the history of religion. But I maintain that the incorporation of a second and distinguishable figure into the worship practice of those who otherwise practiced a cultic exclusivity was a most remarkable development.​

List of Selected Publications: Larry W. Hurtado | Larry Hurtado's Blog

Your Son of God = "son of god" parallel are similar in wording, but different in meaning. Your argument fails.

(1) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths.

They are exactly the same. Theology always had mythology.

That is an abstract hypothesis less than 100 years old. The style of the Gospels is NOT the same as any myth, and you have not provided a single example (again).
Psychological depth is at a maximum. In myth it is at a minimum. In myth, such spectacular external events happen that it would be distracting to add much internal depth of character. That character depth and development of everyone in the Gospels—especially, of course, Jesus himself—is remarkable. It is also done with an incredible economy of words. Myths are verbose; the Gospels are concise.

Compare the Gospels with two particular mythic writings from around that time to see for ourselves the stylistic differences. The first is the so-called Gospel of Peter, a forgery from around A.D. 125, and the story of Apollonius of Tyana, written about A.D. 250 by Flavius Philostratus. Both have a fairy tale atmosphere, both are mythical in style, but radically and clearly different in style from the Gospels.

"...The point is that this is what you get when the imagination goes to work. Once the boundaries of fact are crossed we wander into fairyland. And very nice too, for amusement or recreation. But the Gospels are set firmly in the real Palestine of the first century, and the little details are not picturesque inventions but the real details that only an eyewitness or a skilled realistic novelist can give." (Thinking About Religion, p. 75-76)​

The style of the Gospels is NOT the same as any myth of that era. You're wrong.

Plenty of time.

Some scholars still dispute the first-century date for the Gospels, especially John's. But no one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. There is not even one generation. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

Is worthless in a historical debate

That is unsubstantiated apologetic rhetoric

ALL academia states the gospel authors are unknown.

It would be helpful if you actually took a class and knew what you were debating when it comes to history.

Apologetic statements are not historically credible

Only if we lack credible education.

That is only an apologetic stance you carry with no credibility. Its why you cannot source your statements with credibility.

I can provide Yale professors on the NT that state the authors are unknown by MOST scholars today.

Any chance you could supply something historically credible?

That is a theological apologetic statement hat carries no historical credibility at all.

Any chance you could support your assertions with some details? "theological apologetic statements", if you interpret it as such, is still, in fact, historically credible as the disciplines overlap. It is a fallacy to use history as the as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter of theology and apologetics. You commit this fallacy chronically.

Explain why the myth theory of the Resurrection is so late in coming. Was it because for 1900 years, everyone was too stupid to see it? My explanation is that it is post-enlightenment revisionism, probably fueled by political motives, given that Vladimir Lenin liked the theory.

 

[outhouse]

He doesn't fit the standard of myth development which always takes much longer than 30 years to develop,

He fits it to a T

Not only that, mythology surrounding a living person can develop very quickly.


Your statement of taking longer then 30 years is false, that's why YOU NEVER substantiate your opinion. You cant.

 

[outhouse]

So let us argue from Paul's letters

Argue away.

Paul wrote from the Diaspora far removed from any eyewitnesses.

Paul belong to a different culture then Jesus and never knew or met him or heard a word pass his lips.

Paul also wrote about theology and did not describe any credible historical details about the man.


Paul describes the resurrection which is highly debated if it was spiritual or physical.


I believe it was a spiritual resurrection that grew in mythology to physical by the time Paul wrote some 15 years after death.