Jesus is a Myth!

[POI]

The Gospels are fiction and the Jesus character is a myth. There may have been a Jesus upon whom the character is based, but I doubt it.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2). I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's Asian churches were effectively unmoored and they absorbed a sort of second- or third-hand tradition left over from the Jerusalem church. That tradition was allegorically retold in the Synoptics. Acts is a sort of theological textbook, allegorically describing the fusion of the Pauline churches and what little remained of the Jerusalem church through the conflict between its Peter and Paul characters and the resoliution of that conflict.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity? If so, how do we know?

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

**************************************

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

[SiNcE_1985]

You asked for theological differences between Paul and Jesus. I supplied you with some.

You pasted a supply of something.

I don't know what all that was.

I said pick one that you'd like to discuss..as I hope you didn't expect me to respond to ALL of that.

It is Gish Gallop.

You failed to address the theological differences and instead offered an ad hominem and slander. Which is a waste of time in debate.

You claim that their are differences between Jesus' theology and Paul's...and I ask that you pick one and explain why the two are conflicting.

I guess the easy thing to do was copy & paste regurgitated skeptical stuff you find on the internet.

But the challenge is to actually articulate why you're skeptical of it.

As we can see, one was done. The other..a lot of resistance.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #190]

That thanks was legit.

I'll be responding to it soon.

[Clownboat]

You pasted a supply of something.

What an odd way to admit that I did supply many theological differences between Paul and Jesus as you requested.

I don't know what all that was.

It was some theological differences between Paul and Jesus. You know, something you asked for.

I said pick one that you'd like to discuss..as I hope you didn't expect me to respond to ALL of that.

They don't require a response, just an acknowledgement that they exist and are real.

It is Gish Gallop.

Nope, it us just some theological differences between Paul and Jesus. Something you requested.

You claim that their are differences between Jesus' theology and Paul's...and I ask that you pick one and explain why the two are conflicting.

I supplied many and each one follows up with an explanation.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Eph 1:7 Paul says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Rom 4:25 Paul says: who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Matt 6:14-15 Jesus says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Paul says you need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to be redeemed (compensate for the faults). Jesus claims that if you forgive others, God will forgive you too.

I guess the easy thing to do was copy & paste regurgitated skeptical stuff you find on the internet.

I spend many hours of my life coming up with what I supplied to you. I see that you will falsely believe whatever it takes in order to stick your head in the sand.

But the challenge is to actually articulate why you're skeptical of it.

Skepticism isn't involved. As I demonstrated above, Paul and Jesus had very different theological view points on redemption/forgiveness just for one.

[Difflugia]

Nonsense. Post #167.

Please respond.

OK. Here's a response to nonsense post #167:

Paul never mentions an earthly Jesus.

See, that's where you are WRONG.

Paul said, 1 Corin 11:23-25..

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Paul is rehashing The Last Supper (The Lord's Supper), an event that he wasn't present for..and an event that is recorded in all four Gospels, all of which were written AFTER his epistle.

Exactly. My argument is that the Gospels are allegory rather than history. They were written as earthly analogues to the "Lord's supper" tradition that we find in Pauline Christianity. The traditions involving Paul's heavenly Jesus were adapted to stories set on Earth for the Gospels, which were written later.

You can't get from Paul to the story in the Gospels without reading the Gospels back into Paul. Paul doesn't tell us to whom Jesus was "delivered" and in what way. Even the translation requires the Gospels to be read back into Paul, because παραδίδωμι doesn't mean "betrayed," but "handed over." It's a subtle difference, but Paul never expounds on what that means. He just treats it as a creedal claim.

Paul doesn't tell us with whom, if anyone, this meal was shared.

Finally, if we take Paul at his word, this knowledge is original to Paul's visions. He received it from the Lord after his death and ascent to heaven. Remember also that Paul claims that his gospel comes from the heavenly Jesus alone by direct revelation (Galatians 1:11-12). The person that told Paul all of this was imaginary.

Since the Gospels were written later, there's little reason to think that the Last Supper tradition has a basis in an actual event. No details in Paul speak of an earthly Jesus. Paul's epistles read exactly the same whether Jesus was a real human being on Earth or not.

So, if Paul is mentioning Jesus' betrayal, his last supper with his disciples, AND is quoting what Jesus said during it..then he is mentioning an earthly Jesus...contrary to falsity you just stated.

The Jesus of Paul's visions didn't include anything that could be tied to the earthly ministry of a natural human being. Paul knows nothing of disciples. For Paul, apostles are those that have had prophetic visions of the risen Jesus.

That's why apologetics is important, to put nonsense like this in check.

It also keeps you from reading the New Testament as it's written. I wonder if that's a bug or a feature?

You can simply tell me how Paul's theology differs (contradicts) from Jesus.

That's a weird way to put it. Paul's theology doesn't contradict "Jesus" because Jesus is just a character in his tradition. It certainly contradicts the other Jesuses in the New Testament, but they're just characters in stories, too. And this is what I meant about you not understanding the scholars: the scholars agree with me. The consensus is that the vast majority of what's often read as gospel history didn't happen. The difference is that most of those scholars also believe that if one digs down to peel away enough of the legendary and religious embellishment and accretion, there's a real guy at the bottom. That's certainly an important point to certain discussions, but when push comes to shove, I agree with them and they agree with me far more than either of us agrees with you.

Or, is this the second time where you are either unable or simply refuse to back up your claims.

Bart Ehrman believes in the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

I've heard him express this out of his own mouth...and that is what I thought the question of the thread is asking.

Sure. I know that he believes exactly what you've written, but like your understanding of Paul, I suspect you're reading far more into what Ehrman's saying than what's there. Here's a paragraph from Jesus Before the Gospels. Is this what you think Ehrman meant?

To sum up what we have seen in this chapter, oral traditions change as they are told and retold from one person to another. They change every time they are told. If what we have in the Gospels are not eyewitness reports (on which, see chapter 3), but accounts in circulation, not just for weeks or months, but for years and decades, then almost certainly they were changed. We know in fact that they were changed, because we can compare different accounts of the same words or activities of Jesus and find discrepancies. Yet other accounts are historically implausible, and so appear to have been created in the years of transmission as people recounted what they had heard about the life of their Savior.

Now, let's even say for the moment that it is. Unless you think that the purest form of argument from authority is sufficient, you have to understand what his arguments are and how to defend them. If Ehrman thinks that the stories "are not eyewitness reports" and a number are even "historically implausible," then how are you deciding which stories to use as proof texts for historicity?

So, to recap, we're talking about Paul's Jesus specifically. What's your evidence that Paul's Jesus ever set foot on Earth?

If you're not going to actually learn about the subject, then just go back to 10¹⁰¹²³.

I'll gladly go back to that expression if you ever want to engage me with the subject of fine tuning.

10¹⁰¹²³ doesn't have anything to do with the fine tuning argument. That's why it's so funny.

[POI]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #182]

The continued 'handwaving' presented by Venom is mind-boggling. Belief preservation is demonstrated to be strong here... The Christian apologetic strategy here is to huff and puff. And when he realizes his interlocutor is educated and/or well-versed on the topic or subject matter, he aborts or deflects with excuses.

[SiNcE_1985]

That is bound to happen when you see red.

For you...

Red everywhere...and then you see black.

Yes, the archives show that you 'responded.' But you did not actually offer an answer. Let's harken back to post 154. You asked me " How do we know Caesar was stabbed or that Hannibal rode war elephants to battle?"

If you were to be honest with yourself, based upon the (4) points I laid out in post 154, which fella presents with more evidence to demonstrate their mere existence between (Caesar and Jesus)? I'd say Caesar. Why?

The evidence for Julius Caesar is considered better than the evidence for Jesus because it includes more contemporary sources, extensive archaeological findings, and Caesar's own writings. Caesar had a public, military, and political life that left a significant, documented, and tangible footprint in history, whereas Jesus was a more private figure whose primary evidence consists of religious texts written decades after his death.

Caesar's own writings, like his accounts of the Gallic Wars, are direct, primary sources from his lifetime.

Contemporaries like Cicero wrote about him during his life, providing corroborating evidence.

There is extensive physical evidence from Caesar's life, such as coins minted with his likeness during his time and numerous public works projects.

Caesar's role as a dictator had an undeniable and public impact that is impossible to mistake or falsify.

However, being these are writing from antiquity, I'd still have to wage a mere probability as to whether or not a Caesar really existed, when compared to say... Abe Lincoln. If I were to compare (Caesar to Abe), Abe clearly WINS.

Cool.

So, basically, despite all that evidence of Caesar's existence, which is vastly more than Jesus' in comparison...Jesus Christ has still surpassed Caesar in terms of global impact and popularity.

God can take the least, and make the greatest.

But, that aside; the question remains; how is Jesus a mythical figure as opposed to a historical one?

Alternatively, the primary sources for Jesus are the Gospels. They were written decades after his death

Alexander the Great's biography was written 400 years after his death, and is still considered credible by historians..so that would make Jesus' decades later Gospels seem like a newsflash in comparison.

That, followed by the fact that again, even if the Gospels were written 2 months after Jesus' death, I doubt you'd become a believer.

Look, we've had these same conversations before and nothing will change...not the apologetics, nor your skepticism.

You seem to have this compulsive need to pry away at Christianity by asking these questions and making these threads when nothing will change here nor there.

Just...stop it.

, and not by eyewitnesses to his life, and they contradict each other in detail. (I tried to show this to you, but you flat out refused to watch the 12-minute video demonstrating that Mark and Luke do not jive.)

I simply disagree for previously given reasons.

Moreover, while there are a few extra-biblical mentions of Jesus, like those from (Tacitus and Josephus), these are often based on hearsay and written even later, largely referencing information from the Gospels themselves.

Most historians writing about actual history, is writing years later...so I'm not sure why you're mentioning that part.

Second, I love how skeptics just can't accept that Jesus is mentioned by two first century historians.

Nothing is theological about what they said about Jesus (minus the Josephus interpolation). They both only stated that Jesus existed and was put to death by Pilate, and that a religious movement (superstition) resulted after his death.

Jesus can't even get that much, huh?

There is really no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus, as he was not a public figure who left behind a lasting material trail, unlike Caesar, who did. This is why later believers concocted or manufactured physical evidence, like "the Shroud", and the like.

In essence, as it stands, I'd say the score board is as follows:

The likelihood Abe Lincoln really existed is ~99%.
The likelihood Caesar really existed is ~80%.
The likelihood Jesus really existed is ~50%. ?.?.?.? --- (and I think my rating here is generous)

Your move buddy.

So, base on even your rating system...the evidence for Caesar and Abe Lincoln ain't equal.

What does this mean? It means that the evidence may be all across the board for a specific person.

Some may more, some less.

But once it is established, it is established.

The evident for Jesus is..

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. Paul's epistles, particularly 1Corinth.
6. Josephus
7. Tacitus

So, we have seven sources for Jesus' existence, all dating from within the century of his death.

The earliest mention of him (Paul) can be dated within 20-25 years of his death. Paul was a contemporary to Jesus, his followers, and early Christian congregations that grew from Jerusalem to Corinth...and throughout the Roman Empire.

Men who don't exist don't create movements like this.

So to say that Jesus didn't exist and is a myth, is complete foolishness and an abomination to historical scholarship, in general.

[OneJack]

Or..

You can simply tell me how Paul's theology differs (contradicts) from Jesus.

Here is a start:

Rom 13:12 Paul says: the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Luke 21:8 Jesus Says: Take heed that you are not led astray, for many will come in my name saying, the time is at hand! Do not go after them.
It's almost like Jesus was warning us about Paul.

Rom 14:9 Paul says: For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Luke 20:38 Jesus says: Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.
Lord of the dead if you ask Paul, not Lord of the dead if you ask Jesus.

Rom 13:9 Paul says: The commandments, you shall not commit adultrery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and any other commandments, are summed up in this sentence, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Matt 22:37-39 Jesus says: And he said to him, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul highlights loving your neighbor. Jesus highlights loving the Lord your God.

Rom 9:15-16 +18 Paul says: For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. [18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
Matt 5:7 Jesus says: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Paul claims that God will have mercy on whom he has mercy. Jesus shares with us that the merciful will obtain mercy.

Eph 1:7 Paul says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Rom 4:25 Paul says: who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Matt 6:14-15 Jesus says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Paul says you need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to be redeemed (compensate for the faults). Jesus claims that if you forgive others, God will forgive you too.

Rom 3:24 + 28 Paul says: they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,… [28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom 5:9 Paul says: Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Matt 12:37 Jesus says: for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
More of Paul making this about the sacrifice if Jesus. Jesus on the other hand claims that we will be justified by our words.

Rom 6:23 Paul says: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal live in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Matt 19:29 Jesus says: And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
Paul once again makes this about the death of Jesus. Jesus on the other hand alludes to a very different way to receive eternal life and does not mention human sacrifice.

2 Cor 8:21 Paul says: for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of men.
Luke 16:15 Jesus says: But he said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts, for what is exaled among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Paul, be honorable in the sight of men.
Jesus, what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Rom 2:12 Paul says: All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
John 12:48 Jesus says: He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge, the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.
Paul says you will be judged by the law. Jesus says you will be judged by the words he has spoken.

1 Cor 4:15 Paul says: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Matt 23:9 Jesus says: And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Paul says to call him father, Jesus says to call no man on earth your father.

Rom 10:4 Paul says: For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.
Matt 5:17 Jesus says: Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets, I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Paul said that Christ is the end of the law. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law.

1 Cor 12:28 Paul says: And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers.
Eph 4:11 Paul says: And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
1st Tim 2:7 Paul says: For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Matt 23:8 Jesus says: But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
John 10:16 Jesus says: And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold, I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one pastor (shepherd).
It's like Paul is justifying creating a church while Jesus tells us that we only have one teacher (God).

1 Cor 4:15 Paul says: For though you have countless leaders in Christ…
Matt 23:10 Jesus says: Neither be called leaders, for you have one leader,
More of the same? Paul justifying the creation of a church, and Jesus sticks to the idea that the kingdom of heaven is within us.

1 Cor 5:7 Paul says: For Christ, our pachal lamb, has been sacrificed.
Eph 5:2 Paul says: And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Matt9:13 Jesus says: Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'.
Paul, again all about the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus claiming that sacrifice is not desired.

Nice presentation! This post shows too many contradictions in Paul’s teachings when compared to Jesus.’ How then will this be resolved if we ask the Christians? The answer is plain and simple - set aside all the epistles and focus solely on Jesus when biblical matters are at stake.

[POI]

So, basically, despite all that evidence of Caesar's existence, which is vastly more than Jesus' in comparison...Jesus Christ has still surpassed Caesar in terms of global impact and popularity.

This is a pure hot garbage argument for two reasons.

1) Julius Caesar never told anyone to worship him to receive everlasting life.
2) If a popularity contest is where it's at, then be ready for Islam to soon surpass your indoctrinated beliefs. And even if it never did, based upon a popularity barometer, the claims from Muhammad would still be deemed way more credible than Caesar.

how is Jesus a mythical figure as opposed to a historical one?

I already explained the odds.

Alexander the Great's biography was written 400 years after his death, and is still considered credible by historians..so that would make Jesus' decades later Gospels seem like a newsflash in comparison.

Sure. If the age of the biography was the only measure, then yes, the apparent veracity of Julius Caesar far exceeds that of Alexander. However, since we have other variables to consider, and I mentioned some of them in post 154, this is not where the analysis ends. Spoiler alert... Jesus is likely much lower on virtually all of them.

That, followed by the fact that again, even if the Gospels were written 2 months after Jesus' death, I doubt you'd become a believer.

The Gospels are not trustworthy. A plain side-by-side reading confirms this. --- Couple this with observed political/religious bias, observed additions/modifications/subtractions/other, and you have a recipe for an untrustworthy publication, which is to be discarded as deemed '"truth." But is instead a mere time capsule to the past.

Look, we've had these same conversations before and nothing will change...not the apologetics, nor your skepticism. You seem to have this compulsive need to pry away at Christianity by asking these questions and making these threads when nothing will change here nor there. Just...stop it.

Nothing will change when you have been (heavily indoctrinated) and then apply (belief preservation), while supporting this illogical religion. And yes, you will never change your position, no matter what. Just like Kent Hovind won't. You two are like two peas in the same pod. You two will go down with the ship, Titanic-style, no matter what.

I simply disagree for previously given reasons.

Another handwave...

When reading the beginning of Luke, it's clear the author did not even claim to be a direct witness. An eyewitness would not need to investigate. They would tell their direct tale, through eyewitness attestation. (i.e.) 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

Well, his 'investigation' is a mere synonym for "corruption/manipulation", when directly compared to "Mark".

Most historians writing about actual history, is writing years later...so I'm not sure why you're mentioning that part.

Please recall it was YOU who brought up Julius Caesar. You also missed the point given. The writings from Julius Caesar, both from himself and others, were contemporary. The Gospels were not. This gives an advantage to the writings of Julius Caesar <over> the Gospels here.

Second, I love how skeptics just can't accept that Jesus is mentioned by two first century historians.

As stated prior, if the only criteria to analyze was the age, then you would have some type of a very small point. But there are many factors involved. And the Gospels have quite the uphill climb on all fronts.

Nothing is theological about what they said about Jesus (minus the Josephus interpolation). They both only stated that Jesus existed and was put to death by Pilate, and that a religious movement (superstition) resulted after his death.

Hmm, so you too accept that the 'golden paragraph', within Josephus's writing (Testimonium Flavianum) was a later corrupt addition, and not from Josephus?

So, base on even your rating system...the evidence for Caesar and Abe Lincoln ain't equal. What does this mean? It means that the evidence may be all across the board for a specific person. Some may more, some less. But once it is established, it is established.

Sadly, there is no way to truly 'verify' a character from ancient antiquity. We can only surmise and go with the 'odds'. But, couple the lesser probability, with all the errors abound, and you have a recipe for unlikeliness, at least where it REALLY counts. (i.e.) that an ancient apocalyptic preacher really did rise from the grave to say hi to some followers, as this is a very far-fetched tale.

The evident for Jesus is..

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. Paul's epistles, particularly 1Corinth.
6. Josephus
7. Tacitus

0+0+0+0+0+0+0 still equals 0.

The earliest mention of him (Paul) can be dated within 20-25 years of his death.

Paul never even attempted to mention knowing a Jesus when he was alive. So, he obviously would not count.

Paul was a contemporary to Jesus,

No. The soldier who also wrote about Julius Caesar was a contemporary to Caesar. Paul was not a contemporary to Jesus.

his followers, and early Christian congregations that grew from Jerusalem to Corinth...and throughout the Roman Empire.

The religion did not really prosper until Constantine.

Men who don't exist don't create movements like this.

Yes, they can.

[SiNcE_1985]

What an odd way to admit that I did supply many theological differences between Paul and Jesus as you requested.

Gish Gallop.

It was some theological differences between Paul and Jesus. You know, something you asked for.

Gish Gallop.

They don't require a response, just an acknowledgement that they exist and are real.

I understand that you'd prefer to just say stuff with impunity...and maybe it works from time to time, depending on who you are engaging.

But, when you engage me, nonsense gets exposed and put in check.

It's what you can expect.

Nope, it us just some theological differences between Paul and Jesus. Something you requested.

Oh, is that what it was?

It was hard to tell.

I couldn't make out much, considering all the Gish Gallop.

I supplied many and each one follows up with an explanation.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Eph 1:7 Paul says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Rom 4:25 Paul says: who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Matt 6:14-15 Jesus says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Paul says you need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to be redeemed (compensate for the faults). Jesus claims that if you forgive others, God will forgive you too.

Two things can be true at the same time.

We accept Jesus' death and blood as an atonement (forgiveness) for our sins against God, and we are also, at the same time, expected to forgive others for their trespasses against us.

Jesus gave a parable, tying the two concepts together in Matt 18:21-35 (do yourself a favor, and read it.

It is a beautiful, fair and balanced illustration of the "system" God has put in place..if he forgives you, he expects you to forgive others.

You want mercy rendered to you, then render it to others.

Next..

I spend many hours of my life coming up with what I supplied to you. I see that you will falsely believe whatever it takes in order to stick your head in the sand.

And I've spent countless hours raking up leaves as such.

Skepticism isn't involved. As I demonstrated above, Paul and Jesus had very different theological view points on redemption/forgiveness just for one.

I had to read it a few times just to see what the (your) issue was.

No issue at all.

Again, two things can be true at the same time.

If you apply simple reading comprehension between the two, and you'll find there is no issue at all.

Just skeptism at it finest...looking for something that isn't there.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is a pure hot garbage argument for two reasons.

1) Julius Caesar never told anyone to worship him to receive everlasting life.
2) If a popularity contest is where it's at, then be ready for Islam to soon surpass your indoctrinated beliefs. And even if it never did, based upon a popularity barometer, the claims from Muhammad would still be deemed way more credible than Caesar.

Um, first of all, I agree; this isn't a popularity contest.

But since you're the one touting all the evidence for Caesar, and emphazing how much impact he had, then I'm only countering it with how much my guy (Jesus), with less evidence, had even more of an impact.

No other human being, fictional or otherwise, has had more of a global impact as a whole, and on single, individual lives; than Jesus of Nazareth (who is called Christ).

No one.

Period.

Literally, every single second of the day, Jesus is on someone's mind.

No one, living or dead, can hold a candle to Jesus of Nazareth.

The greatest man born of a woman, John the Baptist (Matt 11:11), stated that he isn't worthy to even untie Jesus' sandals (Luke 3:16).

John the Baptist baptized Jesus, but John said that Jesus should be the one baptizing him!! (Matt 3:13-17).

Put some respect on Jesus' name (I say so humbly, with love).

I already explained the odds.

Those odds are shaky.

Sure. If the age of the biography was the only measure, then yes, the apparent veracity of Julius Caesar far exceeds that of Alexander. However, since we have other variables to consider, and I mentioned some of them in post 154, this is not where the analysis ends. Spoiler alert... Jesus is likely much lower on virtually all of them.

I was talking about Jesus' biographies; the Gospels...which even according to you, were written only decades later, after his death.

If 400 years after person X's death can still be considered credible, then decades after person Y's death should be considered even more credible.

Unless, of course, we are hopping in the taxicab and are riding around in fallacious territories.

Is that what we're doing?

The Gospels are not trustworthy. A plain side-by-side reading confirms this. --- Couple this with observed political/religious bias, observed additions/modifications/subtractions/other, and you have a recipe for an untrustworthy publication, which is to be discarded as deemed '"truth." But is instead a mere time capsule to the past.

Well, saying the Gospels are not trustworthy is your opinion.

I'd ask for evidence, but all you want to do is request videos to watch, which I can just as easily do as well..to support my side of things.

Nothing will change when you have been (heavily indoctrinated) and then apply (belief preservation)

Heyyy, what's up, Genetic Fallacy?

It's been a couple weeks since I've seen you.

How have you been?

Oh, I get it..you only come around when POI needs help.

I get it.

while supporting this illogical religion. And yes, you will never change your position, no matter what. Just like Kent Hovind won't. You two are like two peas in the same pod. You two will go down with the ship, Titanic-style, no matter what.

Another handwave...
When reading the beginning of Luke, it's clear the author did not even claim to be a direct witness. An eyewitness would not need to investigate. They would tell their direct tale, through eyewitness attestation. (i.e.) 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

Broo, that's the point!!!

Luke (the alleged author), is being genuine and sincere, by blatantly insinuating that he ISN'T/WASN'T an eyewitness.

That in itself (in my opinion, obviously, yours differ), is part of what gives credence to the entire book.

He also stated..

1. There were eyewitnesses (many), which obviously presupposes that there was someone (and others, plural) to bear witness, and some thing to bear witnessed of.

2. This was his orderly account, distinguishing his account from other orderly accounts (he said that "I, too, am giving an orderly".

So, in summary, the author of Luke is stating that there were many eyewitnesses who saw, and some even gave orderly accounts of what they saw, which is what he is doing with the book that he wrote.

Seems genuine to me.

Well, his 'investigation' is a mere synonym for "corruption/manipulation", when directly compared to "Mark".

Bro, to be honest, I don't even think you believe what you just said.

Please recall it was YOU who brought up Julius Caesar. You also missed the point given. The writings from Julius Caesar, both from himself and others, were contemporary. The Gospels were not. This gives an advantage to the writings of Julius Caesar <over> the Gospels here.

Um, the point is, one can systematically and emphatically deny/reject anything.

You claim that Julius Caesar left his own writings.

Ok, well, I can ask..

Me: How do you know HE actually wrote it?

You: Because, he said in the annals (or whatever it is) "I, Julius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, wrote this".

Me: Well, how do you know he even wrote that? Anyone could have written that, and portrayed it as him.

No matter what you your response is, there can always be plausible deniability from the skeptic... especially given the fact that this is all historical inquiry...and neither one of us were there.

At some point, it all simply comes down to..

1. Either you believe it.

2. Or you don't.

As stated prior, if the only criteria to analyze was the age, then you would have some type of a very small point. But there are many factors involved. And the Gospels have quite the uphill climb on all fronts.

I just don't see what you see, and vice versa.

Hmm, so you too accept that the 'golden paragraph', within Josephus's writing (Testimonium Flavianum) was a later corrupt addition, and not from Josephus?

I do..because it is glaringly obvious...and whoever corrupted it needs to be slapped because it was just fine without it.

Sadly, there is no way to truly 'verify' a character from ancient antiquity. We can only surmise and go with the 'odds'. But, couple the lesser probability, with all the errors abound, and you have a recipe for unlikeliness, at least where it REALLY counts. (i.e.) that an ancient apocalyptic preacher really did rise from the grave to say hi to some followers, as this is a very far-fetched tale.

Well, as I always say..

Either you believe it, or you don't.

I can certainly understand how it can seem far-fetched to an unbeliever.

But to a believer, it is everything.

Just the tale of two different paths.

0+0+0+0+0+0+0 still equals 0.

For an unbeliever, that's what it is.

Paul never even attempted to mention knowing a Jesus when he was alive. So, he obviously would not count.

This is a strawman, and much more...because skeptics like throwing the "Paul never met / didn't know Jesus" thing around...but..

1. We don't know if Paul ever met and/or seen Jesus despite his lack of confirming whether he did/didn't in his written work.

So anyone making such a statement is committing the arguing from silence fallacy...which is what your doing.

2. No is claiming that Paul met Jesus anyway...as our argument works fine even without the claim.

I am of the opinion that Paul never met Jesus formally, but he did see him in person.

This is an opinion, but I'm not making any argument off this opinion and I would encourage you to do the same on the flip side.

Third, all evidence shows that Paul was contemporary to the times, area, culture, and religion...he would know, and was in a position to know, whether the protagonist of the religion (Jesus) was a myth or not.

That's what being contemporary means...which he was.

It is obvious that Paul didn't think of Jesus as a myth and even more so, spoke of him as if he wasn't.

Fourth, it's funny, because what you guys are claiming about Tacitus and Josephus (not being contemporary to Jesus), does not apply to Paul, and that STILL isn't good enough for you guys.

So again, nothing is ever good enough...a skeptic can/will always find something.

So, it all goes back to...either you believe it, or you don't.

No. The soldier who also wrote about Julius Caesar was a contemporary to Caesar. Paul was not a contemporary to Jesus.

Scholars date Paul's conversion to between 3-5 years after the crucifixion.

That's makes him contemporary to Jesus.

The religion did not really prosper until Constantine.

Your definition of "prosper" differs from mine.

Yes, they can.

Oh, care to share examples?