Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[JesseB]

Christians claim a life-changing presence of God that stays with them, promotes real change in their hearts and minds, and is described as a relationship--ALL promised and described at length in the NT.

Are these the same Christians who had their beliefs inculcated by indoctrination from early childhood?  Of course they will make claims that sit well with their peers and help them feel one with the herd.  The belief came first and the rationalisations followed later when they felt the need to prop up that belief.  People can have life-changing experiences reading any number of inspiring authors or even self-help books.  None of that needs any gods pulling strings in the background.

Also the adoption of almost any philosophy (at least any good one) or religion can produce the same results. As for religions they also lay claim to prescience. SO then are they all true? Every single religion you don't believe in stev?

[JesseB]

Right there in verse 8. Paul said Jesus appeared to him. We know that was on the road to Damascus from other places. You will have to give me a verse about Paul getting everything from divine revelation.

I can't be arsed right now to waste time looking up the specific verses but didn't the people with him either see the light and not hear the voice or hear the voice and not see the light depending on what version of the story you read?  If Paul saw and heard something and the people next to him didn't then that sure sounds to me like something other than a physical appearance.  If Paul says Jesus appeared to him and it was some kind of vision then all the other claims of appearances become suspect that they may be similar even if we accept that they happened at all.

Also my point in mentioning it, just to say once again was all this occurred after the supposed person called Jesus was already dead...... Kinda a big problem that has yet to be addressed considering all the writing that paul did which would have to be thrown out. Since it's not evidence, it is claims. Not a personal account.

[Gwaithmir]

Eh, I mean he did the same to me not long ago and he was fucking right. And I owned that shit.

Using the Bible as recorded history would be silly because the Bible contains loads of things that obviously never happened.

This is why, if Jesus existed, he wasn't the Biblical Jesus.

I agree. I've read about two dozen books on the historicity of Jesus and am of the opinion that there was an historical Jesus who was probably executed for sedition, but the biblical Jesus is fictional.

[JesseB]

Eh, I mean he did the same to me not long ago and he was fucking right. And I owned that shit.

Using the Bible as recorded history would be silly because the Bible contains loads of things that obviously never happened.

This is why, if Jesus existed, he wasn't the Biblical Jesus.

I agree. I've read about two dozen books on the historicity of Jesus and am of the opinion that there was an historical Jesus who was probably executed for sedition, but the biblical Jesus is fictional.

@Gwaithmir HI HI O/ glad you could join us!

[Snoopy]

There were a number of street preachers who did get killed sharing the name Yeshuwa but you don't want any of them to be your Jesus, what they preached you would consider blasphemy so.... Bit of a problem there dude.

What do you mean by what they preached?
What are the sources of this information?

Eh, the source is richard carriers work, I'll have to dig up the specific one. Keeping in mind I only use the information of his that no one contests.

Ok. I had a quick look around but I didn't find anything besides lots of his books for sale and courses, some articles but I don't know where exactly to look. It would be appreciated if you could find it. I can have another look later.

　
You mentioned preachers killed that were also named Yeshua and their teachings would be considered blasphemy.
How can that be known?

Are there records of these people and their teachings?

[JesseB]

What do you mean by what they preached?
What are the sources of this information?

Eh, the source is richard carriers work, I'll have to dig up the specific one. Keeping in mind I only use the information of his that no one contests.

Ok. I had a quick look around but I didn't find anything besides lots of his books for sale and courses, some articles but I don't know where exactly to look. It would be appreciated if you could find it. I can have another look later.

　
You mentioned preachers killed that were also named Yeshua and their teachings would be considered blasphemy.
How can that be known?

Are there records of these people and their teachings?

Yea I actually can't source it to you because I can't buy his books.... It's something he's said in his talks too and when I read it, it kinda was me borrowing the book. Couldn't find it posted anywhere not behind a paywall. I kinda knew that would be an issue the moment I said I'd get you the source.

But yes there are records, and Carrier talks about it in at least 2 of his books, and sometimes talks about it in his public speeches too.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I think that Schrodinger's poorly explained point, if he ever had one at all amongst his whining and inability to write properly, it is that he is wondering where people are getting an Alternative Jesus ™ from if not from the Bible and if the Bible is completely unreliable then why think there was a Jesus at all?

Well, my response is simply the following: It may be highly likely that no Jesus existed ... as the Bible is an unreliable and unhistorical piece of crap, for the most part at least ... but if there was a Jesus ... then he was a real person who the made-up character from the Bible was based on. So basically, there may have been some inspiring dude who was going around like a hippy and ended up getting crucified ... so then the writers of the Bible felt so inspired they ended up exaggerating his abilities and making him into some sort of hippy Superman ...

... it wouldn't be the first time that that has happened: that someone was looked up to as a role model but they ended up getting mythologized and supernaturalized.

I think that's what happened with the Buddha. He was a dude, someone we have far more evidence of existing than we do Jesus, and his abilities and powers (and even the things he said) was greatly exaggerated.

Hell, there are even quotations from the Buddha that have been written down and translated over the years and even in them you can see the Buddha telling his students to stop misunderstanding him LOL.

If Jesus existed ... he was some highly misunderstood peaceful dude who got crucified for heresy, and then he was made into such a Martyr that people completely exaggerated stories about him after the fact and wrote it down in their book of fairy tales. But as there was no fiction back then, and people were far less educated, everyone believed the stories. That could very well be what happened.

[SteveII]

So no Paul was not in a position to know a damn thing, he was not eyewitness to the events. His account is entirely based on hearsay, or possibly drug induced or schizophrenia induced visions. He didn't even convert until  after Jesus supposedly died.

Your first sentence is obviously false. He knew all the characters and spend years with them--including two stints in Jerusalem. Barnabas--high ranking early leader vouched for him in Jerusalem and was his mentor in Antioch for years. All this BEFORE his missionary journeys and the writing of his epistles.

As for the 500 bit, I thought you claimed Paul said it, I may have gotten a bit confused in the mess of claims however. Doesn't matter if paul said it however the 500 "eye witnesses" are a claim unless you can dig up 500 accounts from actual fucking eye witnesses. Thus you can not claim it is an eyewitness account or personal experience. 

Paul related the early church teaching that Jesus appeared to more than 500 --many of them still alive. I never claimed I heard from 500 witnesses. Paul would certainly have met many of these people. Paul believed this fact. I believe Paul (and have never heard a good reason not to). It is as simple as that. Hearsay, yes. Evidence nonetheless. Actually, according to ancient historical standards, pretty good evidence.

P2 in your claim is also false, it could not be verified as all if it was written after the fact. Supposedly Jesus was already dead. Funny enough the Romans kept good records about who they killed and had no record of the event, thus it couldn't even be verified then that Jesus died let alone lived. There were a number of street preachers who did get killed sharing the name Yeshuwa but you don't want any of them to be your Jesus, what they preached you would consider blasphemy so.... Bit of a problem there dude.

Your first sentence is confused. Everything about anything is written after the fact. The "Roman Record" counter argument presupposes that we have anywhere close to a fraction of the roman empire documents. Do you think we have anywhere close to a fraction of the roman empire's documents?

Also it's important to remember that the NT has a whole lot of factual errors and contradictions from historical figures out of place, to Jesus supposedly being in multiple places at the same time. Including accounts of his birth which supposedly took place with his non magical parents in two places at the same time.

A "whole lot" huh. How many would you say? Are the actually important facts or are they the facts like I got the date wrong or the you don't go through that town to get to that other town? Exactly what do you think that proves?

I have no idea what you are talking about with Jesus' birth.

Also one last point, every single one of the gospels are plagiarized off the first one, and none of them were written when the people alive during the supposed events could have reasonably still been alive. So at best you have haresay of actual events recorded in the bible at worse you have one made up account and a dozen or so plagiarized copies of the account dressed up to look pretty and renamed under different apostles for events that never happened.

Plagiarize is a pejorative term in an attempt to mischaracterize the gospels without actually making any points. It would seem that Matthew and Luke had Mark on hand when they set their account down. They had a different audience and a different emphasis and takes on things. There is also a significant portion of material that is in the other gospels that is not in Mark. What about Q? Why not mention that? I'll tell you--it's evidence that the stories were written down WAY before you want the stories to be circulating.

Ah, dating. I wondered when that would come up. Why are the later dates preferred by the atheist scholars? This is important. You probably think there is some secret formula the wise scholars know when something was written. Well, it's not that. Because it was clear that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in Mark 13. Why is that important? Well, if the gospel was written before the destruction of the temple, then that creates a problem for atheist scholars and their pet theories because Jesus predicted a huge event. So it MUST have been written after. That's it. That's the reason. How about that for letting your bias direct your scholarship!

I'm going with the early dating--because it actually is better reasoned. As you pointed out, Luke wrote Luke/Acts as a two volume set. Luke finished Acts before Paul's death in 67. You don't forget to mention the death of one of your main characters in your report. So if Acts was done before 67, how long before was Mark written? At least a few years--It had to get circulated and copied because both Luke and Matthew had to "plagiarizer" it. I think sometime in the 50s is a good estimate. Well, look at that! There are three gospels all written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses--in fact, all written within the lifetime of every single important character in the story.

[JesseB]

So no Paul was not in a position to know a damn thing, he was not eyewitness to the events. His account is entirely based on hearsay, or possibly drug induced or schizophrenia induced visions. He didn't even convert until  after Jesus supposedly died.

Your first sentence is obviously false. He knew all the characters and spend years with them--including two stints in Jerusalem. Barnabas--high ranking early leader vouched for him in Jerusalem and was his mentor in Antioch for years. All this BEFORE his missionary journeys and the writing of his epistles.

As for the 500 bit, I thought you claimed Paul said it, I may have gotten a bit confused in the mess of claims however. Doesn't matter if paul said it however the 500 "eye witnesses" are a claim unless you can dig up 500 accounts from actual fucking eye witnesses. Thus you can not claim it is an eyewitness account or personal experience. 

Paul related the early church teaching that Jesus appeared to more than 500 --many of them still alive. I never claimed I heard from 500 witnesses. Paul would certainly have met many of these people. Paul believed this fact. I believe Paul (and have never heard a good reason not to). It is as simple as that.  Hearsay, yes. Evidence nonetheless. Actually, according to ancient historical standards, pretty good evidence.

P2 in your claim is also false, it could not be verified as all if it was written after the fact. Supposedly Jesus was already dead. Funny enough the Romans kept good records about who they killed and had no record of the event, thus it couldn't even be verified then that Jesus died let alone lived. There were a number of street preachers who did get killed sharing the name Yeshuwa but you don't want any of them to be your Jesus, what they preached you would consider blasphemy so.... Bit of a problem there dude.

Your first sentence is confused. Everything about anything is written after the fact. The "Roman Record" counter argument presupposes that we have anywhere close to a fraction of the roman empire documents. Do you think we have anywhere close to a fraction of the roman empire's documents?

Also it's important to remember that the NT has a whole lot of factual errors and contradictions from historical figures out of place, to Jesus supposedly being in multiple places at the same time. Including accounts of his birth which supposedly took place with his non magical parents in two places at the same time.

A "whole lot" huh. How many would you say? Are the actually important facts or are they the facts like I got the date wrong or the you don't go through that town to get to that other town? Exactly what do you think that proves?

I have no idea what you are talking about with Jesus' birth.

Also one last point, every single one of the gospels are plagiarized off the first one, and none of them were written when the people alive during the supposed events could have reasonably still been alive. So at best you have haresay of actual events recorded in the bible at worse you have one made up account and a dozen or so plagiarized copies of the account dressed up to look pretty and renamed under different apostles for events that never happened.

Plagiarize is a pejorative term in an attempt to mischaracterize the gospels without actually making any points. It would seem that Matthew and Luke had Mark on hand when they set their account down. They had a different audience and a different emphasis and takes on things. There is also a significant portion of material that is in the other gospels that is not in Mark. What about Q? Why not mention that? I'll tell you--it's evidence that the stories were written down WAY before you want the stories to be circulating.

Ah, dating. I wondered when that would come up. Why are the later dates preferred by the atheist scholars? This is important. You probably think there is some secret formula the wise scholars know when something was written. Well, it's not that. Because it was clear that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in Mark 13. Why is that important? Well, if the gospel was written before the destruction of the temple, then that creates a problem for atheist scholars and their pet theories because Jesus predicted a huge event. So it MUST have been written after. That's it. That's the reason. How about that for letting your bias direct your scholarship!

I'm going with the early dating--because it actually is better reasoned. As you pointed out, Luke wrote Luke/Acts as a two volume set.  Luke finished Acts before Paul's death in 67. You don't forget to mention the death of one of your main characters in your report. So if Acts was done before 67, how long before was Mark written? At least a few years--It had to get circulated and copied because both Luke and Matthew had to "plagiarizer" it. I think sometime in the 50s is a good estimate. Well, look at that! There are three gospels all written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses--in fact, all written within the lifetime of every single important character in the story.

1. A personal account requires you to have a personal experience. Even if this guy met the other people involved and relayed stories from them what he's done is relay hearsay. Now if he approached it like an actual historian would and said hey I met this fellow and they said this. It would be a second hand source, better than hearsay worse than personal experience.

You're simply trying to ignore the fucking point. Paul's account is worthless. He wasn't there, he doesn't know, that's assuming it's not just  a total fabrication to begin with. At best he's a guy that had an experience he interpreted as religious read some books, liked them, wrote his own fan fiction of their accounts and rolled with it. AT BEST.

Seriously I get why you love the classical arguments, you've never bothered to keep up with the things we've learned about history past the 1800's.


2. The 500, paul wasn't fucking there. He wasn't a christian until AFTER Jesus died. So the entire account is either a forgery, a fabrication, or a lie. Pick one. His own admission puts him in the church after all of the events that took place. If you bothered to read your fucking bible you'd realize that it sounds a hell of a lot like a guy tried to write himself into his own fanfiction.

That Paul isn't a contemporary of Jesus is pretty well known and established even in Christian circles dude

"The conversion of Paul the Apostle, was, according to the New Testament, an event in the life of Paul the Apostle that led him to cease persecuting early Christians and to become a follower of Jesus. It is normally dated to AD 33–36." Holy fucking shit dude. how many times are you going to ignore the fact that this right here demonstrates you have a big fucking problem with your claims about his testimony. He didn't meet those people, he didn't see anything, and he didn't claim to have interviewed 500 people. He wrote it as if he himself was there when he fucking wasn't. This is a problem dude. How the fuck do you keep ignoring this.

"I'm going with the early dating--because it actually is better reasoned. As you pointed out, Luke wrote Luke/Acts as a two volume set.  Luke finished Acts before Paul's death in 67. You don't forget to mention the death of one of your main characters in your report. So if Acts was done before 67, how long before was Mark written? At least a few years--It had to get circulated and copied because both Luke and Matthew had to "plagiarizer" it. I think sometime in the 50s is a good estimate. Well, look at that! There are three gospels all written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses--in fact, all written within the lifetime of every single important character in the story.?
-No you're going with whatever date backs up your preconceived notion. Show us how your dating makes sense. What are the methodologies are you using to arrive at this conclusion. I'm sticking to the general consensus because I'm not an expert in this field. That said I've heard the justifications before and found them reasonable. If you want to change my mind, do so. But with the mental gymnastics you've been displaying thus far I have little confidence in your ability to do so.

The gospels are mostly plagiarized right down to the word usage and phrases, then modified, and further modified over thousands of years by Christians more than happy to commit fraud and forgery in Jesus' name. That you would claim otherwise show's how uninformed you are. Now I get it, I'm schooled in digital forensics, I'm trained to know an authentic work from a fake. You are not. The people who realized these documents aren't sound are also, you are not. Combined with the fact that you refuse to listen to any contemporary apologist or biblical scholar, or historian that wasn't born in the 1800's it's unsurprising you're having difficulty understanding this. I can't help you if you refuse to fucking due your due diligence. 


I bet you're going to claim there's no major contradictions in the bible. Like say, where baby Jesus was supposedly born. Eh? How bout the fact that census didn't happen back then the way the bible claims (kinda a big deal), and that we know no such census took place. It is a story, a fabrication. There's two such stories based on this fabrication and they can not both be facially accurate. That you don't know what I"m talking about is further evidence you never bothered to read your fucking bible. Hell I was aware of this contradiction since I was a young child.

[JesseB]

@SteveII Let me ask you a serious question. Does the fact that the bible is loaded with forgeries, and contradictions, and messed up dates, written by unknown people who were definitely not eyewitnesses (at best they were telling stories they'd heard from possible eyewitnesses) concern you even a little as to the validity of the document?

Or do you seriously just throw out any information which would make you question the document by default.


Also do you think that the NT is without any flaws or errors, that it is a perfect document. I'm actually curious about this one, since the only other people using the arguments you're making and the reasoning you're using are people who insist that the bible is a perfect historical document with no flaws in it at all. You threw out the OT (or so it seems) but the reasoning behind the NT is that you seem to be convinced that it is perfect and accurate. Or at least reasonably accurate. It's not but I want to know what you're position is exactly. As your argument is almost entirely dependent on this point.


Are you aware of the known forgeries in the NT?

[SteveII]

I do care about the strength or weakness of evidence. Just on a macro sense of whether I have justified belief, I don't want to argue about one point and then another.

Your overall belief is based on the individual beliefs.  If you come to see that the criteria you are using to accept the pieces is flawed then you may see that your overall belief is not actually based on good evidence.

 So what about the 500 eyewitnesses. This is the passage from Paul that it comes from:

1 Corinthians 15:1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.

Paul is restating (from v1) a series of core beliefs (v3 "first importance"). ..."6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." Four points:

1. Paul meets the standards of historic methodology of credibility: he was in a position to know.

He was also in a position to lie or exaggerate as he was trying to convince people of his beliefs.  That is why corroborating testimony, especially from a disinterested third party, would be useful.  Paul also doesn't really tell us how he knows these things except "according to the scriptures" which can be read at least 2 ways: a side comment that these things were foretold or an admission that he believes they happened because they were in the scriptures.

2. This is not a claim to a new fact that the recipients did not know.

It doesn't say that they knew this independently.  It says that Paul is reiterating what he already taught them.  

3. This is not a claim to a fact that could not be verified when it was made.

Possibly, but in the end that is irrelevant.  We have no information that anybody tried to check it let along whether they succeeded or failed.  We can only base decisions on the information we have not information that we wish we had.  

4. While there is no place else with that exact number, Luke relates that Jesus spent 40 days appearing to the apostles (Acts 1). He makes no attempt to relate all the appearances.

The implication in Paul is that he appeared to 500 at once although it is not completely clear on that.  The room for interpretation is another part of the problem since we can't cross-examine Paul for specifics.  Luke says he hung around 40 days, other gospels have him gone sooner, again with lots of wiggle room for interpretation.  Unless you already believe and are willing to be generous in how you read it the stories have a lot of holes in them.

It seems you have three choices: Paul is lying, Paul is mistaken, or Paul is relating a fact that he has reasons to believe are true. Which is more likely and why?

We know people lie and we know people make mistakes and we know people exaggerate and we know people honestly believe things that are wrong.  What we do not know is that anybody can rise from the dead.  Without a great deal of specific corroborating evidence, any of the mundane explanations have to be given far greater weight than that Paul was conveying accurate information. We don't even have to get into whether or not Paul actually even said that or it was edited later because even dating it early and attributing it to Paul it doesn't help the case.

Even if we grant that Paul is relating what he honestly believes we have no good reason to accept Paul's word.  You can talk right now to followers of Jones and Moon and Applewhite and they will relate the miracles they saw.  Belief, even shared belief, is not enough to accept extraordinary claims.

But I do have good reasons to accept Paul's word. I find the entire NT content and message compelling (subjective). I find that it accurately describes man's condition and the prescription for that condition is effective. I also find there is no reason not to believe the NT OTHER THAN miracles cannot happen. In other words, there are no coherent competing hypothesis to the NT other than a plain reading. I don't have the roadblock you have here. I, like nearly all the people ever born, have a built in tendency to believe in the supernatural. I believe in my personal experience with God and the experiences of those I know and have read about. I also believe that the universe demands an explanation.

You are starting with the bias that Paul is completely wrong, and looking to support for it. The problem is you don't have much to go on other than skepticism. It's not like the evidence lead to two or three competing theories. Competing theories make a bunch of ad hoc assumptions and assertions and then only explain half of what we have--usually covered with "it was added much later".

Most of you want to make the point that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence against my NT belief. That is simply not the case. There is no mountain. That's just a bullet point you read on atheists sites.

[Gwaithmir]

Ah, dating. I wondered when that would come up. Why are the later dates preferred by the atheist scholars? This is important. You probably think there is some secret formula the wise scholars know when something was written. Well, it's not that. Because it was clear that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in Mark 13. Why is that important? Well, if the gospel was written before the destruction of the temple, then that creates a problem for atheist scholars and their pet theories because Jesus predicted a huge event. So it MUST have been written after. That's it. That's the reason. How about that for letting your bias direct your scholarship!

There's a rather mundane explanation for that. The alleged "prophecy" was made after the fact.

[SteveII]

Unprovable' and 'untestable' does not mean the same probability of a  Magic Invisible Cupcake.

 

Yes it DOES mean the same thing .  A Magical Invisible Cupcake is just as supernatural and untestable as  your god. The Hindu gods are supernatural and untestable, Leprechuns are supernatural and untestable.  Zeus is supernatural and untestable.  Gnomes are supernatural and untestable.  They, like your god, are  supernatural and untestable.  The supernatural has never been proven to exist because it's not falsifiable. 

You have failed now twice to explain why "untestable" mean you cannot have knowledge of something. This is yet another case of trying to apply a scientific concept to things that are not scientific.

I have listed a dozen reasons that can't be proven wrong

   Annnnnnnnd the reason your god  can't be proven wrong is because it's supernatural and unfalsifiable  JUST LIKE HINDU GODS!  OR GREEK GODS or AMERICAN INDIAN GODS!  OR NORSE GODS OR LEPRECHAUNS OR INVISIBLE MAGIC CUPCAKES!!!!!!     You might as well believe in  Invisible  Garden Fairies.  

 You're not getting this concept, are you?  

Two things here:

1. "Supernatural and unfalsifiable" is a tautology.
2. Falsification is a principle that separates what is science from what is not science. It is NOT a principle to separate knowledge from what not knowledge. Obviously and definitionally, the supernatural is not a matter of science. Don't use the word in the same sentence as God or supernatural--it only proves you don't know what you are talking about.

 

The "Bible" isn't evidence because people believed in God??

  Exactly!   Believing in a god is NOT evidence,  even if you write what you believe down on a piece of paper and make stories out of it, it's still not evidence. Even when dozens of people write about believing in a god and get together and put it in a book....it's STILL not evidence.        There are a billion people who believe in Hindu gods.  Using your criteria for evidence,  Vishnu must exist.  

That's a whole paragraph of nonsense. No one claimed that believing in God was evidence. You are trying to use the fact that people believed in God therefore what they attest to is not evidence. You are arguing in a circle. With that logic, there could never be any evidence for God because if it was convincing enough, the person would then believe in God and by some mystifying principle it would stop being evidence for God.

What you need is UNBIASED  evidence OUTSIDE  of your book of claims that a magical man walked on water,  and there are none to be found.  Even though contemporary historians were living in the same area and writing about the events of the day, not one of them ever heard of a Jesus or wrote about him.  Even though the bible says his,  whose fame was known "as far as Syria."   

I need no such thing. What historians do we have all of their work that "should have" mentioned Jesus? That is an Argument from Silence and you have show...

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.[6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Holy shit,  it's like talking to a fucking wall.

I know the feeling.

[JesseB]

I do care about the strength or weakness of evidence. Just on a macro sense of whether I have justified belief, I don't want to argue about one point and then another.

Your overall belief is based on the individual beliefs.  If you come to see that the criteria you are using to accept the pieces is flawed then you may see that your overall belief is not actually based on good evidence.

 So what about the 500 eyewitnesses. This is the passage from Paul that it comes from:


Paul is restating (from v1) a series of core beliefs (v3 "first importance"). ..."6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." Four points:

1. Paul meets the standards of historic methodology of credibility: he was in a position to know.

He was also in a position to lie or exaggerate as he was trying to convince people of his beliefs.  That is why corroborating testimony, especially from a disinterested third party, would be useful.  Paul also doesn't really tell us how he knows these things except "according to the scriptures" which can be read at least 2 ways: a side comment that these things were foretold or an admission that he believes they happened because they were in the scriptures.

2. This is not a claim to a new fact that the recipients did not know.

It doesn't say that they knew this independently.  It says that Paul is reiterating what he already taught them.  

3. This is not a claim to a fact that could not be verified when it was made.

Possibly, but in the end that is irrelevant.  We have no information that anybody tried to check it let along whether they succeeded or failed.  We can only base decisions on the information we have not information that we wish we had.  

4. While there is no place else with that exact number, Luke relates that Jesus spent 40 days appearing to the apostles (Acts 1). He makes no attempt to relate all the appearances.

The implication in Paul is that he appeared to 500 at once although it is not completely clear on that.  The room for interpretation is another part of the problem since we can't cross-examine Paul for specifics.  Luke says he hung around 40 days, other gospels have him gone sooner, again with lots of wiggle room for interpretation.  Unless you already believe and are willing to be generous in how you read it the stories have a lot of holes in them.

It seems you have three choices: Paul is lying, Paul is mistaken, or Paul is relating a fact that he has reasons to believe are true. Which is more likely and why?

We know people lie and we know people make mistakes and we know people exaggerate and we know people honestly believe things that are wrong.  What we do not know is that anybody can rise from the dead.  Without a great deal of specific corroborating evidence, any of the mundane explanations have to be given far greater weight than that Paul was conveying accurate information. We don't even have to get into whether or not Paul actually even said that or it was edited later because even dating it early and attributing it to Paul it doesn't help the case.

Even if we grant that Paul is relating what he honestly believes we have no good reason to accept Paul's word.  You can talk right now to followers of Jones and Moon and Applewhite and they will relate the miracles they saw.  Belief, even shared belief, is not enough to accept extraordinary claims.

But I do have good reasons to accept Paul's word. I find the entire NT content and message compelling (subjective). I find that it accurately describes man's condition and the prescription for that condition is effective.  I also find there is no reason not to believe the NT OTHER THAN miracles cannot happen. In other words, there are no coherent competing hypothesis to the NT other than a plain reading. I don't have the roadblock you have here. I, like nearly all the people ever born, have a built in tendency to believe in the supernatural. I believe in my personal experience with God and the experiences of those I know and have read about. I also believe that the universe demands an explanation.

You are starting with the bias that Paul is completely wrong, and looking to support for it. The problem is you don't have much to go on other than skepticism. It's not like the evidence lead to two or three competing theories. Competing theories make a bunch of ad hoc assumptions and assertions and then only explain half of what we have--usually covered with "it was added much later".

Most of you want to make the point that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence against my NT belief. That is simply not the case. There is no mountain. That's just a bullet point you read on atheists sites.

Accurately describing the human condition is what just about every book ever written does. That's a worthless meaningless point. Catcher in the Rye accurately describes the human condition too. You think that little fucking cunt in the book is some god damn messiah? (lol I can even write like the kid). In fact the human condition is far more complex than the bible, or half of all books ever written combined could even begin to encompass, (Possibly an exaggeration but it's there to make a damn point). So, try again. Finding the message of the bible compelling, and accurately describing the human condition in no way presents any insight into the validity of the document (and in case you're wondering I find Catcher in the Rye pretty fucking compelling too, I quite enjoy it and it probably shows lol, should I then worship that book?). Now don't get me wrong, you're free to believe whatever you want I really don't give a flying fuck. But as for an argument that one is trash.

Also, no you think @unfogged started with the bias that Paul didn't exist. That is a baseless accusation. Most here were once Christians, I'm pretty sure. So in fact your claim is most likely quite the opposite. You need to own this error, it's more important than most of the errors you've made (some of which I'll admit might not even be errors per say, they are too subjective for me to claim that, but this one is a big error, that in no way impacts your argument anyway).

When they say something was added later, it's good to ask why they think that. We know many forgeries were added later to the bible, In fact we can narrow down exactly when they were added and often get pretty close to who made the alterations. It's not some post hoc guess, there's evidence to back up those claims. Read Bart Eherman, he worked a lot on that. And in fact he still thinks there was a person behind the stories, admittedly mostly because that's generally the default historian method. If someone is written about assume they existed usually unless compelling evidence presents to prove otherwise. We've been over the Ehrman/Carrier pissing contest on this already, suffice to say no one really know's if there was a person, even though I sit on the Carrier side of that fence, I'm perfectly willing to say there could have been a person behind it. So even with me your claim about unfogged still wouldn't apply, because I will give you there could be a person. I'm not out to prove anyone didn't exist dude. I'm out to know the facts as best I can. Nothing more, nothing less. That I'm not a christian is mostly a testament to the fact I've never once experienced anything supernatural primarily. Though I've been around people who thought they were experiencing something supernatural. Some of it I can explain quite well, some of it I can't. None of it compelled me to jump to magic as an answer. Thus I never became a believer. Simple as that. I don't need to prove a god doesn't exist, or that Jesus or pual never existed. Keep in mind that even if you demonstrated the existence of a god, that does not mean anyone should follow that god. Once you establish the one, then the other must be established. So even if you could honestly demonstrate a god to the point I would even accept it (and that's not impossible, though I find it unlikely), I still am not threatened in anyway by the discovery. And if you could demonstrate a god existed and was deserving of my loyalty, Then I would give it. We got a long way to go before that ever happens though.

You can imagine a lot, you're quite capable of making yourself believe anything you imagine. No joke you and every other person alive possess this capability. The single biggest problems with your arguments for the supernatural is they basically justify any and every supernatural claim, and a lot of claims that aren't supernatural just products of the human imagination. Like dude, I get that nothing will ever convince you that magic doesn't exist (pejorative for supernatural), but you should at least make a case that's sound enough to prevent any and every other religion or crackpot from being able to use the exact same argument to the same level of justifiably. Otherwise you realize then that you'll need to start respecting Islam more.

[JesseB]

Unprovable' and 'untestable' does not mean the same probability of a  Magic Invisible Cupcake.

 

Yes it DOES mean the same thing .  A Magical Invisible Cupcake is just as supernatural and untestable as  your god. The Hindu gods are supernatural and untestable, Leprechuns are supernatural and untestable.  Zeus is supernatural and untestable.  Gnomes are supernatural and untestable.  They, like your god, are  supernatural and untestable.  The supernatural has never been proven to exist because it's not falsifiable. 

You have failed now twice to explain why "untestable" mean you cannot have knowledge of something. This is yet another case of trying to apply a scientific concept to things that are not scientific.

I have listed a dozen reasons that can't be proven wrong

   Annnnnnnnd the reason your god  can't be proven wrong is because it's supernatural and unfalsifiable  JUST LIKE HINDU GODS!  OR GREEK GODS or AMERICAN INDIAN GODS!  OR NORSE GODS OR LEPRECHAUNS OR INVISIBLE MAGIC CUPCAKES!!!!!!     You might as well believe in  Invisible  Garden Fairies.  

 You're not getting this concept, are you?  

Two things here:

1. "Supernatural and unfalsifiable" is a tautology.
2. Falsification is a principle that separates what is science from what is not science. It is NOT a principle to separate knowledge from what not knowledge. Obviously and definitionally, the supernatural is not a matter of science. Don't use the word in the same sentence as God or supernatural--it only proves you don't know what you are talking about.

 

The "Bible" isn't evidence because people believed in God??

  Exactly!   Believing in a god is NOT evidence,  even if you write what you believe down on a piece of paper and make stories out of it, it's still not evidence. Even when dozens of people write about believing in a god and get together and put it in a book....it's STILL not evidence.        There are a billion people who believe in Hindu gods.  Using your criteria for evidence,  Vishnu must exist.  

That's a whole paragraph of nonsense. No one claimed that believing in God was evidence. You are trying to use the fact that people believed in God therefore what they attest to is not evidence. You are arguing in a circle. With that logic, there could never be any evidence for God because if it was convincing enough, the person would then believe in God and by some mystifying principle it would stop being evidence for God.

What you need is UNBIASED  evidence OUTSIDE  of your book of claims that a magical man walked on water,  and there are none to be found.  Even though contemporary historians were living in the same area and writing about the events of the day, not one of them ever heard of a Jesus or wrote about him.  Even though the bible says his,  whose fame was known "as far as Syria."   

I need no such thing. What historians do we have all of their work that "should have" mentioned Jesus? That is an Argument from Silence and you have show...

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.[6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Holy shit,  it's like talking to a fucking wall.

I know the feeling.

You wanna believe in magic. Be my guess. Hell once you learn to shoot fire balls from the ether let me know, I'd love to be able to cast spells like that.

You can even claim it's "Knowledge" but without some reason to believe your claim. Not interested. There's actually much better arguments and rebuttals to what you said, but this is sufficient. I'm tired. See ya'll after I get some sleep.

Edit: Keep in mind your claim to "knowledge" to justify the supernatural, can justify any and every claim. Including hard solipsism. And you're left with no reasonable way to draw any distinctions between them.

[SYZ]

I do care about the strength or weakness of evidence. Just on a macro sense of whether I have justified belief, I don't want to argue about one point and then another.  So what about the 500 eyewitnesses...

I already addressed this point, and as typical, you unerringly failed to respond to the claims in the link I
provided.  "There's an excellent debunking of the absurd "resurrection" and the purported 500 people who
allegedly witnessed it HERE."

Paul meets the standards of historic methodology of credibility: he was in a position to know.

Paul didn't write about the resurrection. Paul knew about a resurrected Christ but he did not write about the
resurrection event itself.  However Paul did have a unique claim: Paul is the last to have "seen" the resurrected
Christ but the first and ONLY "eyewitnesses" to write about it. But Paul did not actually see Jesus; he heard a
voice or saw a light. That does not count as being an eyewitness. Not only does Paul never actually see Jesus,
there are three different stories told in Acts about Paul's encounter with Jesus.  At any rate, Paul wrote the story
at least twenty years after the alleged resurrection. Contradictions of this magnitude undercut the whole story.

It seems you have three choices: Paul is lying, Paul is mistaken, or Paul is relating a fact that he has reasons to believe are true. Which is more likely and why?

Well, if Paul is "relating a fact that he has reasons to believe are true" is the only likely conclusion, his story falls
into a massive shit heap doesn't it?  Personal beliefs can never be accepted as evidence.

And even more evidence proving that the alleged resurrection never occurred is detailed on THIS site.

[JesseB]

I do care about the strength or weakness of evidence. Just on a macro sense of whether I have justified belief, I don't want to argue about one point and then another.  So what about the 500 eyewitnesses...

I already addressed this point, and as typical, you unerringly failed to respond to the claims in the link I
provided.  "There's an excellent debunking of the absurd "resurrection" and the purported 500 people who
allegedly witnessed it HERE."

Paul meets the standards of historic methodology of credibility: he was in a position to know.

Paul didn't write about the resurrection. Paul knew about a resurrected Christ but he did not write about the
resurrection event itself.  However Paul did have a unique claim: Paul is the last to have "seen" the resurrected
Christ but the first and ONLY "eyewitnesses" to write about it. But Paul did not actually see Jesus; he heard a
voice or saw a light. That does not count as being an eyewitness. Not only does Paul never actually see Jesus,
there are three different stories told in Acts about Paul's encounter with Jesus.  At any rate, Paul wrote the story
at least twenty years after the alleged resurrection. Contradictions of this magnitude undercut the whole story.

It seems you have three choices: Paul is lying, Paul is mistaken, or Paul is relating a fact that he has reasons to believe are true. Which is more likely and why?

Well, if Paul is "relating a fact that he has reasons to believe are true" is the only likely conclusion, his story falls
into a massive shit heap doesn't it?  Personal beliefs can never be accepted as evidence.

And even more evidence proving that the alleged resurrection never occurred is detailed on THIS site.

He ignores you so much I'm beginning to think he just blocked you so he wouldn't have to address your work.

[JesseB]

By the way if anyone is interested in reading any of carriers work, while on the historicity of Jesus might be fun for times like this by far the most interesting work he's done that I know of is his book on ancient medical and surgical procedures used in Rome. Really fun stuff if you're a nerd.

[unfogged]

But I do have good reasons to accept Paul's word. I find the entire NT content and message compelling (subjective). I find that it accurately describes man's condition and the prescription for that condition is effective.

As JesseB noted, that's true of a lot of literature and I would expect that: people wrote it and people write based on what they've experienced so that fact that the text of a book can be related to is just normal. I find compelling messages in many sources and don't limit myself to the one.

I also find there is no reason not to believe the NT OTHER THAN miracles cannot happen. In other words, there are no coherent competing hypothesis to the NT other than a plain reading. I don't have the roadblock you have here. I, like nearly all the people ever born, have a built in tendency to believe in the supernatural. I believe in my personal experience with God and the experiences of those I know and have read about. I also believe that the universe demands an explanation.

Good for you. I prefer to really think about whether what I believe is supportable or not and am not willing to just go with my feelings or the unsupported claims of others. I would also like an explanation for why the universe is as we see it and how it came to be but I'm not willing to just plug a god into that gap and put a bow on it. I want real answers, not comfortable ones.

That paragraph sums up the problem well though. You believe and don't want to question it beyond looking for things that support your belief. That also is how many make decisions and the word to describe it is gullibility. Frankly, it baffles me because I can't think that way. I need evidence to believe.

You are starting with the bias that Paul is completely wrong, and looking to support for it. The problem is you don't have much to go on other than skepticism.

I am not starting with the idea that Paul is completely wrong. I assume he probably existed and that much of the story is at least generally true. I just don't look at it as either completely true or completely false. Each and every claim in the story has to be evaluated independently and some simply do not stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. I can accept that Paul had an experience while traveling but I don't accept his interpretation of it because it doesn't match what I know of reality. I am not saying he is wrong, I'm saying I have no good reason to believe that he is right. I can accept that Paul was arrested and taken to Rome but not that he was allowed to preach to various churches along the way since that doesn't align with how Roman soldiers would have likely behaved. Black and white thinking will cause you to accept a lot of garbage.

It's not like the evidence lead to two or three competing theories. Competing theories make a bunch of ad hoc assumptions and assertions and then only explain half of what we have--usually covered with "it was added much later".

In many cases it WAS added or edited much later and the funny thing is that while competing conjectures may add unsubstantiated assumptions (e.g. epilepsy or malaria in the case of Paul's experience on the Damascus road), those assumptions are generally all within the bounds of known possibilities. Theists, on the other hand, add a MASSIVE assumption about the supernatural existing. Virtually all of the mundane conjectures are FAR more probable than that.

Most of you want to make the point that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence against my NT belief. That is simply not the case. There is no mountain. That's just a bullet point you read on atheists sites.

I know you see it that way. Take off the god glasses someday and look only at what you can demonstrate to be real and your perspective might change.

[SteveII]

And, as has been said and contrary to your claims, whether or not something actually exists is a scientific question.  To claim that something exists when you can give no evidence for that specific thing is not rational.  

That's simply not true. The definition of science is
...
The supernatural is excluded by definition.

You are missing the point entirely.  You claim that the supernatural exists and that you have knowledge about some aspects of what it contains but the only evidence we can examine is effects.  If we can't examine the thing itself then we can never verify any of the claims about it and can never reach a rational conclusion that it even exists.  Something that can't be detected or tested in any way is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.

What we are left with is a bunch of untestable claims where the people making those claims put forth wildly different ideas about what the cause is.  You are certainly free to believe what you want but stop fooling yourself that your beliefs are based on reason.  They aren't.  They are an application of what you've been indoctrinated into slapped over things that we have no answers for.  Yet.

Notice your third sentence. You equated verification to the justifiable knowledge. They are not the same thing. You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question. NOT what is a rational belief and an irrational belief.

I certainly don't believe everything I hear people claim. I'm not sure how many people claim to see Mary or Mohammad so I think that might be a bit of a red herring. But, nevertheless, are those examples analogous to what Christian's claim (required for a special pleading charge). Christians claim a life-changing presence of God that stays with them, promotes real change in their hearts and minds, and is described as a relationship--ALL promised and described at length in the NT.

Not surprising since that's what they are taught to believe will happen if they accept Jesus and what they are told did happen when they do have a change of heart.  The problem is that there is no justification for assuming that Jesus had anything at all to do with it.  Causal relationships have to be demonstrated, especially when the proposed cause is undetectable.

That's foolish to demand causal relationships have to be demonstrated when you are talking about the supernatural effect on a human mind. You have set a logically impossible bar and then declare that the described effect doesn't count.

They don't actually see anyone. Mary, Mohammad, aliens, and NDE are all different than that in significant ways. So, no special pleading when I dismiss them. No falling apart argument.

It is a form of special pleading when you see somebody else's unverifiable claim as unbelievable but accept your unverifiable claim as a rational conclusion.  It's a really convenient set of unfalsifiable beliefs you have going on.  You've tied them up into a nice little ball and convinced yourself that it all makes sense but until you can tie it to reality on some way it is all indistinguishable from fantasy or delusion.

No, it is not a form of special pleading. All you need to do is provide the relevant differences and then, presto--no charge of special pleading.

Testimony about extraordinary events may be enough to spark investigation.  It can never be enough to believe that the explanation being offered is correct.

Regarding your last statement, is that because of the nature of testimony or the extraordinary part?

Primarily the extraordinary part although testimony is always somewhat suspect IMO.  I'm generally willing to accept people at their word about trivial matters (e.g. they have a cat), less about more unusual ones (e.g. they were on the team that killed Bin Laden), and pretty much not at all about the supernatural.  I'm very willing to believe that they had an experience but I am not ready to accept their explantion of it unless and until the proposed cause is shown to be at least possible.

That is a very practical approach to believing another's claims. However, it is not actually grounded in an objective principle which you can use to deny the same consideration to what you think is extraordinary (which is subjective).

Your last sentence is begging the question again. You have set it up so no explanation will be enough because what they are relating IS the evidence that what they are proposing is possible.

[unfogged]

Notice your third sentence. You equated verification to the justifiable knowledge. They are not the same thing. You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question. NOT what is a rational belief and an irrational belief.

They ARE the same thing. If you can't verify your belief in any way then you have no justifiable reason for holding it. The belief is not rational.

That's foolish to demand causal relationships have to be demonstrated when you are talking about the supernatural effect on a human mind. You have set a logically impossible bar and then declare that the described effect doesn't count.

I'm sorry that providing justification for your belief is an impossible bar. That's your problem, not mine. Until you can show me some way to verify that the supernatural is even a possibility, let alone that it exists in some sense, your explanation is unbelievable.

Primarily the extraordinary part although testimony is always somewhat suspect IMO.  I'm generally willing to accept people at their word about trivial matters (e.g. they have a cat), less about more unusual ones (e.g. they were on the team that killed Bin Laden), and pretty much not at all about the supernatural.  I'm very willing to believe that they had an experience but I am not ready to accept their explantion of it unless and until the proposed cause is shown to be at least possible.

That is a very practical approach to believing another's claims. However, it is not actually grounded in an objective principle which you can use to deny the same consideration to what you think is extraordinary (which is subjective). [/quote]

Yes, what is extraordinary has a subjective component but the supernatural is certainly in that category. We aren't quibbling over whether I should believe that Paul said he visited Jerusalem; we are talking about his receiving communication from a god.

Your last sentence is begging the question again. You have set it up so no explanation will be enough because what they are relating IS the evidence that what they are proposing is possible.

No, it isn't evidence for what they are proposing. It is evidence for them having had an experience. The cause of that experience is unknown and before you suggest the supernatural as an alternative you must first demonstrate that that is possible. If Paul had a vision and said it was an alien beaming thoughts into his mind that would not be evidence that aliens beam thoughts into people's minds. If he said it was invisible badgers jumping on his head it would not be evidence for invisible badgers. If thousands agreed with him that it made sense that invisible badgers were the cause it would not add a shred of credibility to the idea that invisible badgers exist and jump on people's heads. Until somebody can show that invisible badgers are even a possibility it isn't rationally believable. The same is true for god claims.

[SteveII]

So no Paul was not in a position to know a damn thing, he was not eyewitness to the events. His account is entirely based on hearsay, or possibly drug induced or schizophrenia induced visions. He didn't even convert until  after Jesus supposedly died.

Your first sentence is obviously false. He knew all the characters and spend years with them--including two stints in Jerusalem. Barnabas--high ranking early leader vouched for him in Jerusalem and was his mentor in Antioch for years. All this BEFORE his missionary journeys and the writing of his epistles.

As for the 500 bit, I thought you claimed Paul said it, I may have gotten a bit confused in the mess of claims however. Doesn't matter if paul said it however the 500 "eye witnesses" are a claim unless you can dig up 500 accounts from actual fucking eye witnesses. Thus you can not claim it is an eyewitness account or personal experience. 

Paul related the early church teaching that Jesus appeared to more than 500 --many of them still alive. I never claimed I heard from 500 witnesses. Paul would certainly have met many of these people. Paul believed this fact. I believe Paul (and have never heard a good reason not to). It is as simple as that.  Hearsay, yes. Evidence nonetheless. Actually, according to ancient historical standards, pretty good evidence.

P2 in your claim is also false, it could not be verified as all if it was written after the fact. Supposedly Jesus was already dead. Funny enough the Romans kept good records about who they killed and had no record of the event, thus it couldn't even be verified then that Jesus died let alone lived. There were a number of street preachers who did get killed sharing the name Yeshuwa but you don't want any of them to be your Jesus, what they preached you would consider blasphemy so.... Bit of a problem there dude.

Your first sentence is confused. Everything about anything is written after the fact. The "Roman Record" counter argument presupposes that we have anywhere close to a fraction of the roman empire documents. Do you think we have anywhere close to a fraction of the roman empire's documents?

Also it's important to remember that the NT has a whole lot of factual errors and contradictions from historical figures out of place, to Jesus supposedly being in multiple places at the same time. Including accounts of his birth which supposedly took place with his non magical parents in two places at the same time.

A "whole lot" huh. How many would you say? Are the actually important facts or are they the facts like I got the date wrong or the you don't go through that town to get to that other town? Exactly what do you think that proves?

I have no idea what you are talking about with Jesus' birth.

Also one last point, every single one of the gospels are plagiarized off the first one, and none of them were written when the people alive during the supposed events could have reasonably still been alive. So at best you have haresay of actual events recorded in the bible at worse you have one made up account and a dozen or so plagiarized copies of the account dressed up to look pretty and renamed under different apostles for events that never happened.

Plagiarize is a pejorative term in an attempt to mischaracterize the gospels without actually making any points. It would seem that Matthew and Luke had Mark on hand when they set their account down. They had a different audience and a different emphasis and takes on things. There is also a significant portion of material that is in the other gospels that is not in Mark. What about Q? Why not mention that? I'll tell you--it's evidence that the stories were written down WAY before you want the stories to be circulating.

Ah, dating. I wondered when that would come up. Why are the later dates preferred by the atheist scholars? This is important. You probably think there is some secret formula the wise scholars know when something was written. Well, it's not that. Because it was clear that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in Mark 13. Why is that important? Well, if the gospel was written before the destruction of the temple, then that creates a problem for atheist scholars and their pet theories because Jesus predicted a huge event. So it MUST have been written after. That's it. That's the reason. How about that for letting your bias direct your scholarship!

I'm going with the early dating--because it actually is better reasoned. As you pointed out, Luke wrote Luke/Acts as a two volume set.  Luke finished Acts before Paul's death in 67. You don't forget to mention the death of one of your main characters in your report. So if Acts was done before 67, how long before was Mark written? At least a few years--It had to get circulated and copied because both Luke and Matthew had to "plagiarizer" it. I think sometime in the 50s is a good estimate. Well, look at that! There are three gospels all written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses--in fact, all written within the lifetime of every single important character in the story.

2. The 500, paul wasn't fucking there. He wasn't a christian until AFTER Jesus died. So the entire account is either a forgery, a fabrication, or a lie. Pick one. His own admission puts him in the church after all of the events that took place. If you bothered to read your fucking bible you'd realize that it sounds a hell of a lot like a guy tried to write himself into his own fanfiction.

That Paul isn't a contemporary of Jesus is pretty well known and established even in Christian circles dude

What are you talking about? No one said Paul was there (not even HIM). I quote the passage. I did not mischaracterize the statement--I read the meaning exactly the way it was written. Paul made a statement that I have reasons to believe and no reason to mistrust and you can't provide any reasons to mistrust him. Accusing me of not reading the Bible is not ever going to be your strongest argument.

"I'm going with the early dating--because it actually is better reasoned. As you pointed out, Luke wrote Luke/Acts as a two volume set.  Luke finished Acts before Paul's death in 67. You don't forget to mention the death of one of your main characters in your report. So if Acts was done before 67, how long before was Mark written? At least a few years--It had to get circulated and copied because both Luke and Matthew had to "plagiarizer" it. I think sometime in the 50s is a good estimate. Well, look at that! There are three gospels all written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses--in fact, all written within the lifetime of every single important character in the story.?
-No you're going with whatever date backs up your preconceived notion. Show us how your dating makes sense. What are the methodologies are you using to arrive at this conclusion. I'm sticking to the general consensus because I'm not an expert in this field. That said I've heard the justifications before and found them reasonable. If you want to change my mind, do so. But with the mental gymnastics you've been displaying thus far I have little confidence in your ability to do so.

Methodologies? What are you talking about? I explained how you get different dating. There is nothing scholarly about the two ranges. It will depend almost entirely if you believe Jesus could predict the destruction of the temple. "Mental gymnastics"? Sound more like I am not saying what you are prepared to debunk so it must be a trick.

The gospels are mostly plagiarized right down to the word usage and phrases, then modified, and further modified over thousands of years by Christians more than happy to commit fraud and forgery in Jesus' name. That you would claim otherwise show's how uninformed you are. Now I get it, I'm schooled in digital forensics, I'm trained to know an authentic work from a fake. You are not. The people who realized these documents aren't sound are also, you are not. Combined with the fact that you refuse to listen to any contemporary apologist or biblical scholar, or historian that wasn't born in the 1800's it's unsurprising you're having difficulty understanding this. I can't help you if you refuse to fucking due your due diligence. 

Ah, Bart Ehrman (who is exactly trained for this AND who is an atheist) does not agree with you. He thinks we have pretty much what was first written. You have to go to a fringe theory peddler to find backup for your statement. What is with you and 1800? What do you think happened then and what is the change you imagine?

I bet you're going to claim there's no major contradictions in the bible. Like say, where baby Jesus was supposedly born. Eh? How bout the fact that census didn't happen back then the way the bible claims (kinda a big deal), and that we know no such census took place. It is a story, a fabrication. There's two such stories based on this fabrication and they can not both be facially accurate. That you don't know what I"m talking about is further evidence you never bothered to read your fucking bible. Hell I was aware of this contradiction since I was a young child.

Wait? What are my options for where Jesus was born? Be specific.

There are a thousand articles on censuses and what that could mean. Have you read even 1?!

I read your paragraph twice and didn't see any "major contradictions". You can't imagine that even if you were right (which I don't believe you are) that either of those examples could in any way be considered "major".

The "read your fucking bible" thing is getting old. There is only one person in this discussion that had a problem remembering what is in the Bible.

[SYZ]

I note that Steve is still refusing to address perfectly legitimate questions asked of him.  This illustrates the
typical behaviour of theists whenever they're backed into a corner with no answers.  Time and again, people
like Steve rely repeatedly and ignorantly on fantasy and fiction that was written millennia ago, with no viable
supporting evidence, other than their faith.  And we all know that faith is defined as belief without evidence.

And the poor bloke actually accepts, unquestioningly, the words of Paul LOL.  Not even seeking any evidence
for Paul's claims about the alleged resurrection;  Paul never witnessed it and relied merely on hearsay, which is
without doubt the poorest of evidence, but Steve's swallowed it hook, line and sinker!  Poor old Steve might be
a perfectly nice bloke in real life, but on this forum he comes across as your typical one-eyed, ignorant,
patronising religious zealot.

And if he really wants to check out some serious contradictions in his bible, then I can only suggest he checks
out this site:  101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible

Although I'm guessing he wouldn't be game—the truth might prove a little painful.

[Chas]

YEAH
IS HISTORICAL JESUS JESUS CHRIST?
IS BIBLICAL JESUS JESUS CHRIST?
THE SAME?

Not even close. 

[Chas]

Broadly speaking, there's Biblical Jesus, historical Jesus, and mythicist Jesus.

All three camps have varying versions within them, so that even Biblical Jesus is not a self-consistent figure at that level. For example, the Jesus of Matthew/Mark/Luke is wildly different from the Jesus of John and also different from the Pauline Jesus.

There should only be two:  Biblical Jesus, actual Jesus.  The former is mythical, the latter's existence is questionable.