"when they say that mutations are unguided [random] says nothing about whether God ever causes a mutation to occur"
Right, it could be magical invisible pixies, or invisible beams pointed at us by undetected space aliens, or it could be Casper the Friendly Ghost, or it could be...
Classic god of the gaps. God lives in the ever receding corner of human ignorance.
Well you can't prove it's not space alien beams!!! You're just arrogantly assuming it's not space alien beams!!!
I suppose that gives some sort of comfort to those who wear foil hats.
" there are diverse kinds of evidence that God exists, including the existence of the universe, --Then what created god? If god is necessary and eternal then the universe can be necessary and eternal. God is just an unnecessary fantasy of an invisible being that explains nothing.
the existence of laws of nature, --Then what explains the laws of god? How did god acquire its regularity, the laws that it functions in accordance with? Again, god is just an unnecessary fantasy of an invisible being that explains nothing.
the applicability of mathematics, --What explains the applicability of mathematics to god? Or is god somehow just an amorphous scattered jumble firing off randomly here and there without any regularity?
the phenomenon of consciousness, --What explains god's consciousness? How does something that is no thing somehow manifest the greatest consciousness of all? Yet again, god explains nothing.
moral knowledge, --How did god get its moral knowledge? Morals are easily explained on naturalism as a social behavior mechanism with a net species reproductive advantage. Again god is unnecessary and explains nothing.
and historical events around Jesus. --There is no history of Jesus. There is mythology of Jesus, just like mythology of the Greek gods, mythology of Moses, mythology of Romulus and Remus, and on and on with hundreds or thousands of ancient mythological stories billions of people believed or believe.
Well, Michael, maybe this simply is not an area of interest to you, fine, but have you noticed that you live, right now, in the greatest era of human discovery in the history of our species?
When I learned some basics of history as a child I often dreamed of how interesting it would be to go back in time to see the pyramids being built, or to voyage to a new continent, or to calculate the the diameter of the Earth with the ancients. I think that is a common desire.
The truth is we live, right now, in a far more exciting era of discovery. For the first time in all human history we can provide real answers to questions of the ages, what are the stars made of, how far are they away, what are all the materials around us made of, how do our bodies work, how to fly like high in the air or swim deep in the ocean, what causes sickness and reproduction, and on and on and on.
Indeed, human ignorance is ever receding, and the more we learn the more preposterous are all the ancient mythologies of the Greeks, Jews, indigenous peoples, and all the rest.
The OP is reduced to mere vague speculations of compatibility. Sure, if you speculate an invisible being with unlimited power you can say that is compatible with anything you actually observe.
Indeed, that is where the mythologies of god persist, in the ever receding corner of human ignorance.
"There is some history of Jesus" Space aliens shaking hands with the likes of Ross Perot, George Bush, Bill Clinton and other historical figures who factually existed, are also multiply attested in writing and in images.
I am certain that there was a man named Jesus alive at that time and place. I am also certain that there was a man named David living in Chicago in 1920, and a man named Richard living in England around 1600.
So-called "history" of Jesus is a combination of dreams written as live events, fiction written as if it is a live event, rumors repeated, forgeries, and stories based on stories based on stories. All written decades after the supposed events.
StardustyPsyche said: maybe this simply is not an area of interest to you
That's not it at all. No, what I find amusing is the way humans glorify proclaimed knowledge, snicker at alleged ignorance, and virtually never concern themselves with the matter of wisdom.
StardustyPsyche said... So-called "history" of Jesus is a combination of dreams written as live events, fiction written as if it is a live event, rumors repeated, forgeries, and stories based on stories based on stories. All written decades after the supposed events.
Josephus and Tacitus did not write dreams, fiction, rumors, nor forgeries. It's not much of a history, but it's enough to establish the Christian phenomenon as coming from a single individual.
New Atheists are typically and predictably mythers, a fringe group held in contempt by the majority of historians, archaeologists, and anyone else who knows what they're talking about. They make a lot of noise but have nothing to say.
"the majority of historians" are biased Christians. Others are biased in other ways.
History is bunk, or at least largely bunk. We have very little reliable history beyond a few very basics facts supported by archeology and independent accounts.
"archaeologists" Ha ha ha. There is zero archeology of Jesus. BTW, archeology is what shows Moses and the Exodus were also myths.
Romulus and Remus were myths, Moses was a myth, the greek and roman gods were myths, and Jesus was a myth.
People who believe such myths are gullible. It turns out that most people are gullible, including most university professors.
Stardusty is forced to embarrass himself denying the concensus of people who know what they're talking about because the cult of New Atheism can't accept even the possibility of there being evidence that supports Christianity. Very sad, but very predictable for a New Atheist.
"Style of writing," Forgers copy style, they aren't idiots.
"Given the concordance with what their contemporaries in letters, etc." There is no concordance of accounts contemporaneous with the supposed life of Jesus. Everything is written much later.
Paul never met Jesus, he was only "revealed" to Paul, and even that was decades after the "fact". The gospels are anonymous, most of which are clear forgeries, the others based on stories many decades old.
"cult of New Atheism can't accept even the possibility of there being evidence that supports Christianity." There is evidence for David Koresh. No such evidence exists for Jesus.
There could be evidence for Jesus, there just isn't any beyond stories that write rumors decades after the "fact", stories the write about dreams (revelations), and obvious forgeries.
StardustyPsyche, Forgers copy style, they aren't idiots.
They are decades after the the original writing, reflecting all the language changes thereto. Try writing a sonnet in the style of Shakespeare.
There is no concordance of accounts contemporaneous with the supposed life of Jesus. How does this affect the reliability of Josephus and Tacitus?
Paul never met Jesus, he was only "revealed" to Paul, He met characters mentioned in the gospels, including Jesus' brother. Myths don't have extant brothers.
"Try writing a sonnet in the style of Shakespeare." In terms of linguistic style, it is pretty simple.
O Jesus, Jesus, wherefore art thou Jesus?
That was easy.
"How does this affect the reliability of Josephus and Tacitus?" Tacitus wrote c 116 about some guy rumored to have lived far away and long ago. The only concordance is with some others who repeated the same rumors.
"He met characters mentioned in the gospels" The gospels were continuation fiction, like a soap opera. The anonymous writers just had to read the OT and Paul and make up stuff to match, pretty simple, any run of the mill writer of trashy scripts for serials and sequels can do the same thing.
I would say you are one of the most gullible and easily lied to people I have encountered, but actually there are billions of people like you who don't understand the basics of how all that ancient mythology bullshit was easily made up.
Hal, "THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF JESUS" There is no archaeology of Jesus.
There is archaeology very roughly of the regions Jesus is rumored to have lived in at very roughly the time period Jesus is rumored to have lived in that general area, but no archaeology of Jesus, none whatsoever.
This article raises some interesting points regarding the ordinary cartoon version of the Middle Ages onward. It also tries to explain why our present-day mythology of Hitler being the measure of all things good and bad.
Kevin" Stardusty is forced to embarrass himself denying the concensus" Oh, the "concensus", how shameful, dastardly, and retarded I must be to do something so shockingly horrid as to deny the "concensus".
After all the consensus was that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, Noah survived a global flood on an arc, Romulus and Remus founded Rome after being raised by wolves, Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, disease is caused by demons and on and on and on.
Sorry, Kevin, the consensus regarding the historicity of Jesus is actually a great deal of repeated lies and repeated wishful thinking.
The actual reliable evidence for Jesus as a historical figure is precisely zero, none whatsoever.
You can remain part of the mass of ignorant sheep who just believe the lies because most others believe the lies but I can think for myself, which you very apparently have some issues with.
There are a couple Romans who wrote down the rumors 80 years later.
There is a guy who had some dreams about Jesus a few decades later.
There are a couple anonymous writers who wrote down the rumors decades later and then a couple more anonymous writers even more decades later read those rumors and wrote down some more made up nonsense stories crafted to match previous made up nonsense stories.
Then several hundred years later a big rich powerful organization dedicated to all this nonsense sifted through the piles of garbage writings available, threw out 90% of it, and declared the remaining 10% was for reals.
Somehow, otherwise intelligent people two thousand years later actually believe that garbage. All I can do is offer my heartfelt condolences and best wishes to the ignorant mass of the "concensus".
Yes, you are clearly more qualified to comment on the evidence than people trained in that profession, including atheists who scoff at anti-Christian ideologues like you.
I'll trust the knowledgeable people, and my own reasoning, over the joke that is New Atheism. Go back to Richard Carrier, he'll applaud your genius I'm sure.
Kevin, "Yes, you are clearly more qualified to comment on the evidence" This is no such evidence. No contemporaneous records. No archeological evidence. The first writings come decades later based on dreams only, Paul. Further decades later a couple anonymous writings based on rumors. Further decades still further a couple more copies and embellishments of past written rumors. Then, some 80 years later a couple Romans wrote about the rumors from far away and long ago, that supposedly happened before they were even born or adults.
Bad, mythological ideas can have a great deal of social an institutional inertia. It's been over 150 years since Darwin published and still there are apologists and huge masses of people in denial.
Historians have a great deal of inertia as well. They don't have evidence, but they have reputations and jobs to protect, as well as investment in the largely mistaken idea that we can determine what really happened in detail in the ancient past.
The unfortunate fact is that the individual facts of ancient events are almost entire lost to us. I don't like that fact either, but most people tend to fill in their ignorance with made up stories, which is a human thing, that is just one of the things people commonly do.
The bible is cover to cover mythology, with only a few very basic facts, such as the fact that rain does occur, there is a sun that appears to be in our sky, there were places such as Egypt and Rome. Beyond such broad statements of fact almost everything in the bible is just made up, just like all the other "holy" books you reject as just made up but others say are factual.
Right, you know more than all the trained historians and archaeologists. Very impressive.
That is, until a cursory examination of New Atheism reveals the movement is adept at making its victims believe they are far better at reasoning and far more qualified to comment on matters of which they know nothing, than they actually are. The mythers are one of the more prominent examples.
I leave you to continue impressing everyone with your expert analysis that is in no way just spouting off nonsensical, anti-Christian New Atheist propaganda. Bravo.
Tacitus wrote c 116 about some guy rumored to have lived far away and long ago. He wrote the the Annals and the Histories, using carefully sourced materials.
The only concordance is with some others who repeated the same rumors. Not his style. He called out rumors as such when he wrote them.
"He met characters mentioned in the gospels" The anonymous writers just had to read the OT and Paul and make up stuff to match, Except Paul wrote first and identified Peter and James.
...people like you who don't understand the basics of how all that ancient mythology bullshit was easily made up.
That you say this without a hint of irony is pretty amusing.
StardustyPsyche said... Then, some 80 years later a couple Romans wrote about the rumors from far away and long ago, that supposedly happened before they were even born or adults.
Josephus would have in Jerusalem, and as a member of the priestly, knew the men involved in his writing of Annals XX.9
"Not a sonnet." I'm not going to write out the whole thing, it isn't that hard for any basic story teller. Writing in period style or in the style of an individual is pretty simple for a writer who has some motivation to do so, such as a desire to tell a fraudulent story.
"using carefully sourced materials." Ha ha ha. Carefully sourced accounts of Jesus 80 years later, funny.
"Except Paul wrote first and identified Peter and James" Yes, he wrote his dreams of Jesus, and named some people he made up, so what?
There is no evidence for Jesus, period, just a few scraps of rumors and mythology.
That used to be a pretty controversial statement, but not anymore. A very great deal has been written about how utterly lacking the Jesus story is in any actual evidence.
There are no contemporaneous accounts. There are no writings from Jesus himself. There are no drawings, sculptures, or likenesses of Jesus. There is no archeological evidence of Jesus.
Now, this is supposedly the son of god, and incarnation of god, the creator of the universe, the most important person ever, a being of infinite power!!!
Yet, no contemporaneous accounts, not direct writings, no likenesses, no archeological evidence. Nothing. A total blank, for the most important and consequential person ever.
I would say it takes a certain kind of gullible person to be so easily lied to and tricked as you obviously are, but the unfortunate fact is that there are billions of people just as gullible as you.
Josephus was born c 37 and died c 100. He was not in any way a witness to any supposed Jesus.
"History" is written by the victors, and Josephus went over to the Roman side. He had his own political reasons for writing what he wrote, hardly a disinterested objective author.
Further, the forgeries of Josephus are so bad they are recognizable as such.
For a good writer of serials and scripts, such as soap operas, sequels, made for TV dramas, paperback mysteries, etc, it is pretty easy to copy style and vocabulary to hide the forgery. But some forgers don't have that talent and just scrawl in whatever lies support their claims, and that is what happened with Josephus in parts.
Josephus, like the anonymous writers of the gospels, wrote down the rumors many decades after the supposed "fact", if he wrote at all of Jesus, because much of what the forgers wrote was forged so badly that it is obviously fake.
And that is as good as it gets for the most important person to ever have lived!!!
People like you go around smugly commenting on how beautiful the emperor's clothes are, and that is the majority, chiding anybody who does not join your fantasy cult. Due to social pressure and conditioning most people will join that sort of mass psychosis, the endless chanting of the same idiotic lies over and over and over, scoffing at anyone who says the obvious, that the emperor has no clothes.
There is no history of Jesus. No archeology of Jesus. No records of Jesus. No likenesses of Jesus. No contemporaneous accounts of Jesus. Nothing written by Jesus himself.
Not even 1 single solitary scrap. Zero.
Is that the best the creator of the universe, the omnipotent one, the most important person ever, can do? You actually believe that? Does it ever bother you to be so daft?
2000 years of scholarship and expertise mean nothing to Stardusty. She enjoys living on the peak of Mt. Stupid and nobody is going to convince her to move.
StardustyPsyche said... I'm not going to write out the whole thing, Wise, as it would disprove the claim you are trying to make. You would make vocabulary errors, grammar errors, etc.
Ha ha ha. Carefully sourced accounts of Jesus 80 years later, funny. Why?
... and named some people he made up, so what? James historicity is not in questions, except by loons.
A very great deal has been written about how utterly lacking the Jesus story is in any actual evidence. Voluminous ignorant babble is still ignorant babble.
Now, this is supposedly the son of god I'm discussing the evidence for an ordinary human. All the "son of god" is irrelevant to me and should be to you.
A total blank, for the most important and consequential person ever. Not a total blank, and an ordinary human, AFAIK.
I would say it takes a certain kind of gullible person to be so easily lied to and tricked as you obviously are, The irony of this coming from a Mythicist is laughable.
Josephus was born c 37 and died c 100. He was not in any way a witness to any supposed Jesus. Never said he was.
...Josephus went over to the Roman side. He had his own political reasons for writing what he wrote, hardly a disinterested objective author. Conspiracy theories? Really?
Further, the forgeries of Josephus are so bad they are recognizable as such. Indeed, you can sort out the forgery from the legitimate.
...it is pretty easy to copy style and vocabulary to hide the forgery. Examples?
Josephus, ... would have directly known the men who executed James.
Kevin said... What's it like, literally never being wrong about anything? Like One Brow's religious beliefs, for example It's a good lesson for me to avoid sounding like that.
Kevin, "What's it like, literally never being wrong about anything? Like One Brow's religious beliefs, for example?" I never made a claim about OBs religious beliefs.
Do you hold opinions you believe to be incorrect? Just wondering.
"I'm discussing the evidence for an ordinary human." That has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.
Of course there was a man named Jesus living at that time.
I say pastor Bob, who died in 1958, was actually god. I wrote that down in 1998. And you know what, there really was a pastor Bod, so there your go, the historicity of Bob-god.
Jesus was a character in the mythology now called the New Testament. There is no historical record of that character. No contemporaneous accounts. No letters to that character. No letters from that character. No self identified witnesses. No likenesses. No contemporaneous court records.
Nothing at all, no historicity of Jesus at all, zero.
Just saying "there was a man named Jesus at that time" is idiotic as an attempt at the historicity of the Jesus character.
There are always lots of Jesuses. There are many Jesuses today. The men living today named Jesus do nothing to demonstrate a modern existence of the Jesus character and the men living in the past named Jesus do nothing to demonstrate the past existence of the character Jesus.
Is that the best the creator of the universe, the omnipotent one, the most important person ever, can do? You actually believe that? Does it ever bother you to be so daft?
You asked this of One Brow. Odd question to ask someone you don't assume believes in God, particularly coupled with the unnecessary insult.
StardustyPsyche said... That has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.
Of course there was a man named Jesus living at that time. There were many, but the man I'm referring was an ordinary human and an apocalyptic preacher whose followers started the Christian church.
"There were many, but the man I'm referring was an ordinary human and an apocalyptic preacher whose followers started the Christian church." There is no history of any such man, zero.
Josephus was not even alive when that mythological character was supposedly killed on a cross. A couple paragraphs are attributed to Josephus, supposedly written decades later, but really just Christian forgeries, like so much other fakery by Christians.
Paul only dreamed of Jesus, never even claimed to have met him in the flesh.
The gospel of "Mark" is anonymous, the dishonest Christians just lied about that too, about being written by "Mark".
The other gospels are later embellishments of "Mark" more anonymous fairy tales that kept adding more and more bizarre and fanciful lies told long, long after the supposed fact, and also anonymously, with the church lying some more by calling the "Matthew", "Luke", and "John". More Christian fraud.
Then, well into the next century, another repeater of rumors supposedly wrote a few words.
No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero. No history of this supposed Jesus at all.
StardustyPsyche said... There is no history of any such man, zero. This is a false statement.
Josephus was not even alive when that mythological character was supposedly killed on a cross. Josephus was alive and in Jerusalem that man's brother was stoned to death. Mythological figures don't have historical siblings.
A couple paragraphs are attributed to Josephus, supposedly written decades later, but really just Christian forgeries, like so much other fakery by Christians. One reference is partially fake, the other shows no signs of fakery.
Paul only dreamed of Jesus, never even claimed to have met him in the flesh. Agreed. He met the same brother Josephus wrote about.
I have no intention of disputing your comments about the gospels although my take on them differs from yours.
Then, well into the next century, another repeater of rumors supposedly wrote a few words. Your desperation to discredit Tacitus has led you to swallow modern-day myths as facts.
No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero. This is standard for men like Jesus from this timeframe.
SP: No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero.
And yet she also says.
Of course there was a man named Jesus living at that time.
SteveK "The deceitfulness is there for all to see." Are you trying to be daft?
There was a man named Jesus, and Sam, and Bob, and Frank, and Jose, and a lot of other men with a lot of names in a lot of places and a lot of times. So what?
That has nothing to do with the historicity of the Jesus character in the bible.
There is no history of the Jesus character in the bible. Pointing to some guy named Jesus is totally irrelevant to the historicity of the Jesus character in the bible.
What part of that don't you get?
OK, there really was a guy named Harry in the UK. Therefore the Harry in Harry Potter is historical?
"Josephus was alive and in Jerusalem that man's brother was stoned to death." Some copy of a copy of a copy centuries after the supposed fact tell a story about a man with the same first name as the name used in a fictional story written by an anonymous author in a copy of a copy of a copy and in those stories a couple worda claim that this man by the same first name as this other figure in this other story were supposedly the brother of some other mythological figure for which there is no historical record at all.
But, Christians just want to believe, and the mythology has been repeated so many times that others fall for the lies too.
"One reference is partially fake, the other shows no signs of fakery." Shhuuurrr, it is only a partial lie, so ok, yah caught me in a lie about half the story but the other half of my story is for reals.
But actually, no, besides the textual clues of the "interpolation" (lies told by Christians in Christian forgeries) there is the fact that no references are made to these important passages until centuries later, when such references to this "interpolation" (Christian fraud) began to appear.
"Your desperation to discredit Tacitus" Tacitus had no credit to write a "history" of the Jesus figure at all. He just repeated the stories.
***No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero.*** "This is standard for men like Jesus from this timeframe." At last we agree. "Men" like Jesus from this timeframe are mythological figures in fictional stories set in that timeframe, so of course there is no historical evidence for them.
We have historical evidence for people in general from the time period. We know that human beings inhabited that region because we have archeological evidence for human beings from that general area. We know people wrote a lot of stories and we know a lot of the languages used and the characters in those stories because we have fragments of such writings.
So, we have a lot of historical evidence at a high level, or a general level, and many details that somebody, we don't know who, must have manufactured.
But we have almost no historical evidence for individual people from that time period, including the figures in the mythological stories that were copied repeatedly.
Nearly everything in the Bible is myth, fiction, or forgeries. The Bible starts with the mythology of the 6 day creation and ends with the mythology of apocalypse.
There was no historical figure of Noah, Moses, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or Jesus. Those are just lies told by Jews and Christians. Mythological stories if you prefer.
For example, just the words "The Gospel According to Mark" is a lie. Christians just made up that lie, and the lie about Matthew, the lie about Luke, and the lie about John because telling those lies was helpful to them to sell their story.
Christians lied about much of the bible that is known to be fakes, frauds (so called "interpolations"). The lies told by Christians range from the obvious and easily identified to the more subtle.
Why anybody would believe anything from a book so riddled with lies is a mystery to me. It has always seemed like a very great deal of nonsense to me.
If your goal is to prove that New Atheists have no clue what they're talking about, ever, on topics related to the god they deny but that still makes them cry online all the time to people who couldn't care less and pity them for the Dawkins mind virus they fell victim to, then a better job could not be done. I applaud you.
If the goal is to prove you know something that crackpot Richard Carrier didn't feed you as reinforcement for the conclusion you're ideologically obligated to rationalize, you've failed utterly.
Either way, highly entertaining. Perhaps that's your goal.
I don't get why you enjoy being so dishonest. You have 2 different standards of evidence for historical people. You aren't an honest seeker of the truth. Everything you said to about Jesus Christ to dismiss the reality of his actual life can also be said about a man named Jesus living at the same time and place. There are no letters to or from a man named Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, there are no likenesses at all, etc, etc.
If SP was an honest seeker of the truth she would conclude that most historical figures didn't actually exist because (insert her reasons why Jesus didn't actually exist). SP won't go that far because she is a dishonest person and she takes pride in that.
StardustyPsyche said... Some copy of a copy of a copy centuries after the supposed fact tell a story about a man with the same first name as the name used in a fictional story written by an anonymous author in a copy of a copy of a copy and in those stories a couple worda claim that this man by the same first name as this other figure in this other story were supposedly the brother of some other mythological figure for which there is no historical record at all.
Same first name and appellation ('James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ'). Unless you put forth some other claimants for these men, this is both a unique identification and a historical record.
...that no references are made to these important passages ... These passages are only important in a discussion with Mythicists, a recent phenomenon.
Tacitus ...just repeated the stories. This is what I meant about your desperation. Tacitus did not just repeat stories, that wasn't his style.
At last we agree. "Men" like Jesus from this timeframe are mythological figures in fictional stories set in that timeframe, so of course there is no historical evidence for them. We have no contemporaneous accounts of Hannibal Barca, who opposed Rome in three Punic wars. Is he a "mythological figure"? Is the Egyptian prophet a "mythological figure"?
So, we have a lot of historical evidence at a high level, or a general level, and many details that somebody, we don't know who, must have manufactured.
So, there was no research or verification of facts by ancient historians, and they just made things up ("manufactured")?
There was no historical figure of Noah, Moses, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or Jesus. I agree on most of these.
"We have no contemporaneous accounts of Hannibal Barca, who opposed Rome in three Punic wars. Is he a "mythological figure"?" Maybe, I have not studied the other evidence for a historical Hannibal Barca.
"Is the Egyptian prophet a "mythological figure"?" Again, maybe. Moses was an Egyptian prophet as portrayed in Jewish mythology, and he is mythological.
"So, there was no research or verification of facts by ancient historians, and they just made things up ("manufactured")?" There is a lot of truth to the old sayings: "History is written by the victors" "History is bunk"
Even with all the modern technologies of communications, libraries, and information networks even modern historians distort history according to political and religious pressures where they work. For example, Palestinian children are taught a much different history than Israeli children.
*There was no historical figure of Noah, Moses, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or Jesus.* "I agree on most of these." Not long ago that statement would have got you branded as a kook. At least you made progress on, I imagine, 6 of the 7 I listed.
I doubt you were inclined to cheat at school, few people did, really, but still, new technology has been brought into use that makes copying and plagiarism almost impossible to get away with now. In the past the grader had to rely an human recognition, now submitted papers and even submitted computer programs or any kind of submission is algorithmically checked against a vast database of other student submissions, and the global library of human works.
Here is an interesting application of similar new technology to Josephus, and what this researched discovered is a link between Josephus and "Luke". https://josephus.org/LUKECH.html
Richard Carrier has famously been criticized as using unconventional methodologies, such as Bayes theorem, in analyzing historical probabilities.
But historians are going to have to move over. There is a new breed of researchers who apply CAT scans, detailed materials analysis, DNA analysis, and textual algorithms that analyze the entire body of virtually all known works of antiquity using computer algorithms, sophisticated mathematics, advanced physics, and a whole suite of modern scientific analytical techniques.
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon an accusation by the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these things and countless other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities 18.63)"
Hang on, this was written by a Jew? A Roman provincial ruler? A man who was born years after "Jesus" died?
Does that even make sense?
The paragraph flatly states "He was the Christ." Uhm, really? A powerful Roman provincial ruler Jew said that? "Christ"? As in messiah? If he really believed that why was he not a Christian? The figure of Jesus was nothing like the messiah foretold by Jewish prophecy. The flat statement that "He was the Christ" makes no sense coming from a Jew.
Supposedly Josephus, the Roman ruler Jew, also said this, flatly stating: "He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these things and countless other marvels about him." Really? A Jew believed in the resurrection of Jesus? The prophets described a messiah that would lead the Jews to defeat their captors, not a dying and resurrected Christ.
It should be pretty obvious just by reading the text that a Christian forged this passage.
You can find out more about this from Rabbi Tovi Singer. Jews are generally pretty good at calling BS on the Jesus story, and Singer has done a lot of research into when references to Josephus appear.
It turns out, according to Singer, that no references were made to this passage for hundreds of years, whereas Josephus's other works were widely referenced in that period. References to this passage began much later after the Christian forger added it.
New Atheism is built on the conclusion "God does not exist", and then any argument or evidence presented is considered in whatever manner it takes to allow not a single concession that something could possibly be evidence. Dawkins finally confessed in his old age that nothing could even in principle count as evidence to him, but most New Atheists still pretend they are open to argument or evidence.
Jurors 1-8: "The evidence is pretty strong. Guilt!" Jurors 9-11: "The evidence is kinda weak. Innocent!" New Atheist Juror 12: "There is NO evidence. Zero, Zilch, None. You're all gullible idiots!"
StardustyPsyche said... Here is an interesting application of similar new technology to Josephus, and what this researched discovered is a link between Josephus and "Luke". https://josephus.org/LUKECH.html
The Testimonium Flavianum has known to be at let partially fraudulent for centuries. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the Tacitus reference nor the later account of the stoning of James.
"historyforatheists" In reality, there is only one history, not a special history for atheists, the fact of what did in truth occur.
The idea that the passage is a partial fraud (or using the Christian whitewash of Christian lies term "interpolation") is pretty pathetic.
Just the parts that are so obviously idiotically fraudulent are fake, the rest is for reals!
Christians cling to such nonsense because that is all they have. There is no history of Jesus, there is no archeology of Jesus.
There are a bunch of Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings goofy stories about Jesus and a gazillion other mythological figures, plus there are a couple forged paragraphs supposedly written several decades later, and then there are a few more distant rumor reports supposedly written lifetimes later.
That's it. No history of Jesus whatsoever, obviously.
But hey, there is really a Kings Cross Station in the UK and there really was a guy named Harry in the UK and we have multiply attested stories of Harry so Harry Potter is a historical figure, just like Jesus Christ!
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ---Arthur Schopenhauer
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win. ---Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi
Noah, Moses, Romulus, Remus, Jesus, Thor, Gabriel, Moroni and on and on and on.
Self evidently mythological indeed. There is no history of these ancient mythological figures, obviously, duh, how can you be so daft?
"Jurors 1-8: "The evidence is pretty strong. Guilt!" Jurors 9-11: "The evidence is kinda weak. Innocent!" New Atheist Juror 12: "There is NO evidence. Zero, Zilch, None. You're all gullible idiots!""
So, the prosecution presents some anonymous fairytale stories about walking on water and masses of people raising out of their graves and a bizarre census that never took place and on and on and on.
Also the prosecution presents a couple forged paragraphs supposedly written decades later for for which we only have copies from hundreds of years later and no reference was made to them in the mean time whereas references to other works of the author were made in the gap period.
Plus the prosecution presents a paragraph written based on rumors a century old first appearing yet another century later.
Juror number 12 asks out loud if maybe the judge was drunk or bribed to even allow that "evidence" into the courtroom, and how the eff are you nitwits even considering this gibberish? There are thousands of stories like this in paperback, goofy movies, and spooky stories told around the campfire.
Those stories can be good fun, I suppose, but what kind of kook actually thinks they are real?
"Dawkins finally confessed in his old age that nothing could even in principle count as evidence to him," False, that is up to god to figure out, being omnipotent and omniscient and all that.
I think I am real, and the sun is real, and the people around me are real, so I am pretty sure god could convince me it is real if god really wanted to. I mean, after being hidden all my life and all of a sudden somebody shows up making a lot of unsupported claims, right, pretty hard to see how such a person could be convincing at all.
But if I had grown up with god, being omnipresent and all, god would have been everywhere for everyone all the time, sort of like air, or the Earth. I think air and Earth are real stuff, not really the way I perceive them, but real stuff I have some kind of basic perception of. God could be like that, except, nope, all we have is a lot of goofy stories.
God, apparently, likes the game of hide and go seek. Hiding behind thousands of years of mystery, leaving no historical record, just a massive library of mutually contradictory fanciful stories.
Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Islamic mythology, Native American mythology, Japanese mythology, African mythology, Indian mythology, Nordic mythology, Jewish mythology.
In these mythologies are thousands of stories of fantastical gods and spirits and special people who do all manner of wonderous deeds.
For some weird reason you think the Jewish mythology is somehow the one real one.
StardustyPsyche said... "historyforatheists" In reality, there is only one history, not a special history for atheists, the fact of what did in truth occur.
The site is devoted to correcting historical errors frequently propagated by atheists, such as the origins of various holidays.
Also the prosecution presents a couple forged paragraphs supposedly written decades later for for which we only have copies from hundreds of years later and no reference was made to them in the mean time whereas references to other works of the author were made in the gap period.
There is no reason to suspect the Tacitus reference or the Josephus account of the stoning of James are forgeries.
Plus the prosecution presents a paragraph written based on rumors ...
Do you have non-circular evidence the paragraph as based on rumors?
True. Dawkins admitted to Peter Boghossian that even the Second Coming wouldn't persuade him, as he would find [actual] hallucination or aliens more likely.
I don't take advice from so-called rationalists who say they experience periodic hallucinations (not illusions) without taking drugs. That kind of mental instability requires professional help.
"Dawkins admitted to Peter Boghossian that even the Second Coming wouldn't persuade him, as he would find [actual] hallucination or aliens more likely." Indeed, but that is not comprehensive of potential evidences.
First, there is the unimaginable evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being could presumable provide.
That's god's job, not mine. If god really is all those things and has all those infinite powers it is up to god to figure out how to persuade me.
If god is incapable of persuading me with evidence then god lacks infinite power, now doesn't it?
I, being finite, having lived a life absent god, cannot imagine any singular event that would be convincing, but so what? My imagination is finite.
I am open to the infinite evidence and infinite persuasion of an infinite god. So far, crickets.
"Do you have non-circular evidence the paragraph as based on rumors?" That's all later writers had.
They wrote, supposedly, far away and lifetimes after the supposed events.
In terms of specific passages, for example from Josephus, clearly the author of the passage is just making it up because even the plain text makes no sense for a Jew to have written.
Also, and you can check Tovia Singer on this if you like, later commentators would refer to Josephus in antiquity. Such commentators did not refer to the passages about Jesus in the time period where they otherwise would reasonably be expected to do so.
Then, later, after a long gap of silence, references began to appear.
So, put it together 1.No contemporaneous accounts. 2.Dozens of known forgeries in circulation telling similar fanciful stories. 3.Silence from later commentators on that supposed passage for a long period during which reference to other works of Josephus were common. 4.The appearance of an absurdly bad forgery written in a manner no Jew would write. 5.Then references to that passage begin to appear, centuries later.
Believing in the historicity of Jewish mythology is just as dumb as believing in the historicity of Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Nordic mythology, or any other mythology.
The only reason so many people take the idiotic Jewish mythology seriously is because it is the mythology of the victors. Christians conquered pretty much the whole world, and in the process destroyed other mythologies as much as possible and pushed their mythology as real.
Indeed, but that is not comprehensive of potential evidences.
Dawkins on what would count as evidence:
Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.
"Nothing" is pretty comprehensive, especially if the Second Coming itself wouldn't faze his commitment to atheism.
If god is incapable of persuading me with evidence then god lacks infinite power, now doesn't it?
Since god doesn't exist, I wouldn't expect it to do much of anything.
StardustyPsyche said... "Do you have non-circular evidence the paragraph as based on rumors?" That's all later writers had.
Tacitus would have had access to Roman records as they existed in the early second century, and Josephus as writing about his home town.
In terms of specific passages, for example from Josephus, clearly the author of the passage is just making it up because even the plain text makes no sense for a Jew to have written.
There are two Josephus passages, and his account of the stoning of James has no conflict with his Judaism.
Such commentators did not refer to the passages about Jesus in the time period where they otherwise would reasonably be expected to do so.
Why would they? What about the account of the stoning of James would be relevant?
So, put it together
You're missing a few puzzle pieces.
Believing in the historicity of Jewish mythology ...
Disbelieving an event or a person because someone mythologized them is just as stupid.
"Disbelieving an event or a person because someone mythologized them is just as stupid."
Agreed. The disciples had experiences with Jesus that they thought were actual appearances and their lives were transformed as a result - to the point of dying for that belief. They didn't think Jesus was a non-existing person. SP is a kook.
Dawkins, if he were the 13th disciple during the time of Jesus, would say his experiences of Jesus were hallucinations. Would you trust the testimony of disciple Dawkins who says he had reoccurring hallucinations of Jesus doing miracles, or would you trust the testimony of several others who said "what we saw really happened"?
Would you trust the testimony of disciple Dawkins who says he had reoccurring hallucinations of Jesus doing miracles, or would you trust the testimony of several others who said "what we saw really happened"?
You're dealing with a subgroup of atheists whose level of reasoning is "We do not see people raising from the dead. Therefore Jesus, who did not exist, did not raise from the dead. Therefore god [sic] does not exist."
Disciple Dawkins: "Miracles don't happen. My lying eyes are telling me that I am seeing something that did not actually happen. My mind isn't working correctly and I don't know why. Regardless, my experiences should be taken seriously because I'm smarter than the other disciples. Therefore Jesus, who did not exist, did not perform any miracles"
"Tacitus would have had access to Roman records" And what exactly are these supposed "Roman records? You are just making that up out of your imagination.
" stoning of James" Sure, lots of guys were stoned, maybe somebody who got stoned was named "James".
"I heard a story about a guy named James and in that story the guy named James was supposedly stoned and he was also rumored to be the brother of another guy rumored to be named Jesus." How absurd. You actually take that sort of thing seriously?
"Disbelieving an event or a person because someone mythologized" There isn't any historical evidence for a Jesus to be mythologized. Jesus simply is a myth, like hundreds or thousands of other ancient myths.
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
In other words, once caught in a lie a source is no longer credible.
The bible is cover to cover lies 6 day creation - lie Noah flood - lie Moses - lie The gospel according to Matthew - lie (it is not according to any known person) The gospel according to Mark - lie (it is not according to any known person) The gospel according to Luke - lie (it is not according to any known person) The gospel according to John - lie (it is not according to any known person)
Most of new testament is forgery, the lie of writing something and then falsely claiming it was written by somebody else.
"Josephus" on Jesus is a lie, obviously, just read it. You don't even need deep scholarly analysis, although such analysis confirms the obvious fact that "Josephus" on Jesus is a lie.
And that is it, that is all Christians have, lies on top of lies on top of lies.
Pretty obvious, just like all the other myths you understand and obviously not historical.
I mean, you do not seriously think the Greek gods existed, or the Nordic gods existed, or the Egyptian gods existed.
Reading the stories is like reading any fiction paperback, or adventure fiction, or any fantasy fiction. It is all good fun if you are an intelligent person who understands it is all fiction, but in the periods of prevalence some of these stories are actually taken as real by great masses of people, people who will sometimes even fight and die in defense of their particular story.
""Nothing" is pretty comprehensive" Nope, not comprehensive at all.
"Nothing" in this context is that given what has transpired so far there isn't anything further that could be demonstrated in the future.
*If god is incapable of persuading me with evidence then god lacks infinite power, now doesn't it?*
"Since god doesn't exist, I wouldn't expect it to do much of anything." Right, and that is what we observe, not much of anything that would even hint at a god.
However, if god did exist with all those marvelous powers and if such a god really wanted us to believe then I am sure god could have done a great many things differently from the beginning.
I am convinced the Earth, sun, air, and people around me are real. God could have been like those things.
Instead we get some idiotic stories about some unrecorded guy among a small tribe a couple thousand years ago, and that guy was supposedly god!!! Stupid does not even begin to describe the absurdity of the Jesus-god.
Christian leaders, Christian writers, lie a very great deal.
In general, Christians are huge liars. Not so much the average Christian today, but just turn on the TV and listen to the preachers scamming for money, liars that only the gullible believe and send money to.
The Christian liars just made another obvious forgery with the James passage.
Here Josephus goes on to discuss Jesus, and Jesus again. But wait, those are other guys! *and now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus,*
Well, the analysis goes on for a long time, but it becomes pretty obvious this is just another Christian "interpolation" (lie), with the story being about other characters, not the mythological characters portrayed in the Christian lies of the Gospel according to .
Talk about smoke and mirrors! No contemporaneous accounts. Forged accounts in the so called Gospel According to Forged accounts that only appear much later in "Josephus" Still later rumor reports
That's it, that's all Christians have, later forgeries and rumor reports. Not a shred of evidence beyond the "evidence" for a historical Harry Potter (There are historically factual Harry guys in the UK and Kings Cross Station is a historically real place, after all).
"Nothing" in this context is that given what has transpired so far there isn't anything further that could be demonstrated in the future.
You just made that up. Dawkins, like all New Atheists, has absolutely no idea what he's talking about regarding anything religious, particularly Christianity.
However, if god did exist with all those marvelous powers and if such a god really wanted us to believe then I am sure god could have done a great many things differently from the beginning.
I have no idea what "god" would do, since I've never heard of anyone who believes in "god".
God is omniscient. God knows who has been given enough to believe. For those people, there's no reason to do things differently. If you believe you haven't been given enough then you can attempt to argue with God in a losing battle of 'Your beliefs versus God's knowledge'. Good luck.
StardustyPsyche said... And what exactly are these supposed "Roman records? You are just making that up out of your imagination.
You think the Roman Empire was held together without records? I thought you did not believe in miracles.
How absurd. You actually take that sort of thing seriously? Since Josephus would have personally known the witnesses, yes.
There isn't any historical evidence for a Jesus to be mythologized. Since you have been discussing/dismissing the evidence, you know it exists. Why the lie?
In other words, once caught in a lie a source is no longer credible. There goes General Relativity.
I mean, you do not seriously think the Greek gods existed, or the Nordic gods existed, or the Egyptian gods existed. I think human preachers existed.
The Christian liars just made another obvious forgery with the James passage.
Non-circular evidence for this claim?
Here Josephus goes on to discuss Jesus, and Jesus again. But wait, those are other guys! *and now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus,*
Was and is, a common name. Which of them was "called Christ"?
Well, the analysis goes on for a long time, What analysis?
but it becomes pretty obvious this is just another Christian "interpolation" (lie), Evidence for this claim?
Forged accounts that only appear much later in "Josephus" One partially forged, one valid, until you have evidence otherwise.
That's it, that's all Christians have, later forgeries and rumor reports. It's more than we have for similar figures.
"You think the Roman Empire was held together without records?" Obviously you have no specific information or evidence regarding any supposed records of Jesus. You are just making that up out of your imagination, that somehow somebody had some records of Jesus.
No such records survive or are even referenced by later writers.
"Since Josephus would have personally known the witnesses, yes." More imagination. "Josephus" does not cite any supposed witnesses he supposedly "knew" or any reason to suspect such wild old stories from before Josephus was even born had a shred of truth to them.
"There goes General Relativity." You obviously know as little about science as you do about the Jesus stories.
GR does not depend on believing stories from an old novel. It gets verified again and again by a wide variety of methods, which is why we know GR is not comprehensive.
StardustyPsyche said... Obviously you have no specific information or evidence regarding any supposed records of Jesus. You are just making that up out of your imagination, that somehow somebody had some records of Jesus. Just as obviously, you have no specific information or evidence regarding the non-existence of such records.
"Josephus" does not cite any supposed witnesses he supposedly "knew"... We know he was a member of the priestly class and in Jerusalem at the time "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James" was stoned.
...stories from before Josephus was even born ... I have been referring only to an event within his adulthood.
You obviously know as little about science as you do about the Jesus stories. I know it predicts point singularities within ordinary matter. Hence, by your standards, it is not credible.
"Josephus" wrote like a Christian, but he was not a Christian. There is nothing in Antiquities XX.9.1 that indicates a Christian writer.
A Christian liar forged those passages. I await non-circular evidence.
Still, "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired" (Swift). You are obviously emotionally attached to Mythicism.
StardustyPsyche said: The bible is cover to cover lies 6 day creation - lie Noah flood - lie Moses - lie The gospel according to Matthew - lie (it is not according to any known person) The gospel according to Mark - lie (it is not according to any known person) The gospel according to Luke - lie (it is not according to any known person) The gospel according to John - lie (it is not according to any known person)
Why did they "lie"? What purpose was intended to be served by each listed "lie"?
85 comments:
See,
Agency Overdetermination
Anthropomorphization
Hyperactive Agency Detection
The human brain is highly complex with myriad processes progressing in parallel, often competing with each other.
You feel like you are talking to yourself because you are.
You feel like you are in conflict with yourself because you are.
"You" or the "I" is not a single locus, a single point, just one thing. You are a multitude.
So, one part of that multitude can follow the logical path of science.
Another part of that multitude can feel the emotion of purpose.
"when they say that mutations are unguided [random] says nothing about whether God ever causes a mutation to occur"
Right, it could be magical invisible pixies, or invisible beams pointed at us by undetected space aliens, or it could be Casper the Friendly Ghost, or it could be...
Classic god of the gaps. God lives in the ever receding corner of human ignorance.
Well you can't prove it's not space alien beams!!! You're just arrogantly assuming it's not space alien beams!!!
I suppose that gives some sort of comfort to those who wear foil hats.
"
there are diverse kinds of evidence that God exists, including
the existence of the universe,
--Then what created god? If god is necessary and eternal then the universe can be necessary and eternal. God is just an unnecessary fantasy of an invisible being that explains nothing.
the existence of laws of nature,
--Then what explains the laws of god? How did god acquire its regularity, the laws that it functions in accordance with? Again, god is just an unnecessary fantasy of an invisible being that explains nothing.
the applicability of mathematics,
--What explains the applicability of mathematics to god? Or is god somehow just an amorphous scattered jumble firing off randomly here and there without any regularity?
the phenomenon of consciousness,
--What explains god's consciousness? How does something that is no thing somehow manifest the greatest consciousness of all? Yet again, god explains nothing.
moral knowledge,
--How did god get its moral knowledge? Morals are easily explained on naturalism as a social behavior mechanism with a net species reproductive advantage. Again god is unnecessary and explains nothing.
and
historical events around Jesus.
--There is no history of Jesus. There is mythology of Jesus, just like mythology of the Greek gods, mythology of Moses, mythology of Romulus and Remus, and on and on with hundreds or thousands of ancient mythological stories billions of people believed or believe.
StardustyPsyche said:
ever receding ... human ignorance.
Amusing.
historical events around Jesus.
--There is no history of Jesus.
There is some history of Jesus, more than for similar figures like the Egyptian prophet.
Well, Michael, maybe this simply is not an area of interest to you, fine, but have you noticed that you live, right now, in the greatest era of human discovery in the history of our species?
When I learned some basics of history as a child I often dreamed of how interesting it would be to go back in time to see the pyramids being built, or to voyage to a new continent, or to calculate the the diameter of the Earth with the ancients. I think that is a common desire.
The truth is we live, right now, in a far more exciting era of discovery. For the first time in all human history we can provide real answers to questions of the ages, what are the stars made of, how far are they away, what are all the materials around us made of, how do our bodies work, how to fly like high in the air or swim deep in the ocean, what causes sickness and reproduction, and on and on and on.
Indeed, human ignorance is ever receding, and the more we learn the more preposterous are all the ancient mythologies of the Greeks, Jews, indigenous peoples, and all the rest.
The OP is reduced to mere vague speculations of compatibility. Sure, if you speculate an invisible being with unlimited power you can say that is compatible with anything you actually observe.
Indeed, that is where the mythologies of god persist, in the ever receding corner of human ignorance.
"There is some history of Jesus"
Space aliens shaking hands with the likes of Ross Perot, George Bush, Bill Clinton and other historical figures who factually existed, are also multiply attested in writing and in images.
I am certain that there was a man named Jesus alive at that time and place.
I am also certain that there was a man named David living in Chicago in 1920, and a man named Richard living in England around 1600.
So-called "history" of Jesus is a combination of dreams written as live events, fiction written as if it is a live event, rumors repeated, forgeries, and stories based on stories based on stories. All written decades after the supposed events.
StardustyPsyche said:
maybe this simply is not an area of interest to you
That's not it at all. No, what I find amusing is the way humans glorify proclaimed knowledge, snicker at alleged ignorance, and virtually never concern themselves with the matter of wisdom.
StardustyPsyche said...
So-called "history" of Jesus is a combination of dreams written as live events, fiction written as if it is a live event, rumors repeated, forgeries, and stories based on stories based on stories. All written decades after the supposed events.
Josephus and Tacitus did not write dreams, fiction, rumors, nor forgeries. It's not much of a history, but it's enough to establish the Christian phenomenon as coming from a single individual.
New Atheists are typically and predictably mythers, a fringe group held in contempt by the majority of historians, archaeologists, and anyone else who knows what they're talking about. They make a lot of noise but have nothing to say.
"the majority of historians" are biased Christians.
Others are biased in other ways.
History is bunk, or at least largely bunk. We have very little reliable history beyond a few very basics facts supported by archeology and independent accounts.
"archaeologists"
Ha ha ha. There is zero archeology of Jesus. BTW, archeology is what shows Moses and the Exodus were also myths.
Romulus and Remus were myths, Moses was a myth, the greek and roman gods were myths, and Jesus was a myth.
People who believe such myths are gullible. It turns out that most people are gullible, including most university professors.
"Josephus and Tacitus did not write dreams, fiction, rumors, nor forgeries."
How do you know that?
How do you know they were not later "interpolated" (a fancy word historians use to cover up that their profession is largely built on lies)?
What are the dates and the sources for those supposed accounts?
I can publish an "historical" account of "factual" bigfoot encounters in the 1990s. That is the level of writing you gullibly accept as "history".
StardustyPsyche,
How do you know that?
Style of writing, Their calling out of less certain facts, etc.
How do you know they were not later "interpolated" (a fancy word historians use to cover up that their profession is largely built on lies)?
Given the concordance with what their contemporaries in letters, etc., the onus is on the person claiming interpolation.
What are the dates and the sources for those supposed accounts?
Easily looked up.
I can publish an "historical" account of "factual" bigfoot encounters in the 1990s. That is the level of writing you gullibly accept as "history".
Bigfeet are vanishingly rare. Judean 1st century apocalyptic prophets were commonplace.
Stardusty is forced to embarrass himself denying the concensus of people who know what they're talking about because the cult of New Atheism can't accept even the possibility of there being evidence that supports Christianity. Very sad, but very predictable for a New Atheist.
"Style of writing,"
Forgers copy style, they aren't idiots.
"Given the concordance with what their contemporaries in letters, etc."
There is no concordance of accounts contemporaneous with the supposed life of Jesus. Everything is written much later.
Paul never met Jesus, he was only "revealed" to Paul, and even that was decades after the "fact". The gospels are anonymous, most of which are clear forgeries, the others based on stories many decades old.
"cult of New Atheism can't accept even the possibility of there being evidence that supports Christianity."
There is evidence for David Koresh. No such evidence exists for Jesus.
There could be evidence for Jesus, there just isn't any beyond stories that write rumors decades after the "fact", stories the write about dreams (revelations), and obvious forgeries.
These are great websites I wish more atheists visited:
The Renaissance Mathematicus
History for atheists
StardustyPsyche,
Forgers copy style, they aren't idiots.
They are decades after the the original writing, reflecting all the language changes thereto. Try writing a sonnet in the style of Shakespeare.
There is no concordance of accounts contemporaneous with the supposed life of Jesus.
How does this affect the reliability of Josephus and Tacitus?
Paul never met Jesus, he was only "revealed" to Paul,
He met characters mentioned in the gospels, including Jesus' brother. Myths don't have extant brothers.
Hal,
Good resources.
"Try writing a sonnet in the style of Shakespeare."
In terms of linguistic style, it is pretty simple.
O Jesus, Jesus, wherefore art thou Jesus?
That was easy.
"How does this affect the reliability of Josephus and Tacitus?"
Tacitus wrote c 116 about some guy rumored to have lived far away and long ago. The only concordance is with some others who repeated the same rumors.
"He met characters mentioned in the gospels"
The gospels were continuation fiction, like a soap opera. The anonymous writers just had to read the OT and Paul and make up stuff to match, pretty simple, any run of the mill writer of trashy scripts for serials and sequels can do the same thing.
I would say you are one of the most gullible and easily lied to people I have encountered, but actually there are billions of people like you who don't understand the basics of how all that ancient mythology bullshit was easily made up.
Hal,
"THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF JESUS"
There is no archaeology of Jesus.
There is archaeology very roughly of the regions Jesus is rumored to have lived in at very roughly the time period Jesus is rumored to have lived in that general area, but no archaeology of Jesus, none whatsoever.
The Carrier Kool-aid is strong in this one.
Hal,
Thanks for the links, especially the history one.
This article raises some interesting points regarding the ordinary cartoon version of the Middle Ages onward. It also tries to explain why our present-day mythology of Hitler being the measure of all things good and bad.
Kevin"
Stardusty is forced to embarrass himself denying the concensus"
Oh, the "concensus", how shameful, dastardly, and retarded I must be to do something so shockingly horrid as to deny the "concensus".
After all the consensus was that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, Noah survived a global flood on an arc, Romulus and Remus founded Rome after being raised by wolves, Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, disease is caused by demons and on and on and on.
Sorry, Kevin, the consensus regarding the historicity of Jesus is actually a great deal of repeated lies and repeated wishful thinking.
The actual reliable evidence for Jesus as a historical figure is precisely zero, none whatsoever.
You can remain part of the mass of ignorant sheep who just believe the lies because most others believe the lies but I can think for myself, which you very apparently have some issues with.
There are a couple Romans who wrote down the rumors 80 years later.
There is a guy who had some dreams about Jesus a few decades later.
There are a couple anonymous writers who wrote down the rumors decades later and then a couple more anonymous writers even more decades later read those rumors and wrote down some more made up nonsense stories crafted to match previous made up nonsense stories.
Then several hundred years later a big rich powerful organization dedicated to all this nonsense sifted through the piles of garbage writings available, threw out 90% of it, and declared the remaining 10% was for reals.
Somehow, otherwise intelligent people two thousand years later actually believe that garbage. All I can do is offer my heartfelt condolences and best wishes to the ignorant mass of the "concensus".
Yes, you are clearly more qualified to comment on the evidence than people trained in that profession, including atheists who scoff at anti-Christian ideologues like you.
I'll trust the knowledgeable people, and my own reasoning, over the joke that is New Atheism. Go back to Richard Carrier, he'll applaud your genius I'm sure.
Kevin,
"Yes, you are clearly more qualified to comment on the evidence"
This is no such evidence.
No contemporaneous records.
No archeological evidence.
The first writings come decades later based on dreams only, Paul.
Further decades later a couple anonymous writings based on rumors.
Further decades still further a couple more copies and embellishments of past written rumors.
Then, some 80 years later a couple Romans wrote about the rumors from far away and long ago, that supposedly happened before they were even born or adults.
Bad, mythological ideas can have a great deal of social an institutional inertia. It's been over 150 years since Darwin published and still there are apologists and huge masses of people in denial.
Historians have a great deal of inertia as well. They don't have evidence, but they have reputations and jobs to protect, as well as investment in the largely mistaken idea that we can determine what really happened in detail in the ancient past.
The unfortunate fact is that the individual facts of ancient events are almost entire lost to us. I don't like that fact either, but most people tend to fill in their ignorance with made up stories, which is a human thing, that is just one of the things people commonly do.
The bible is cover to cover mythology, with only a few very basic facts, such as the fact that rain does occur, there is a sun that appears to be in our sky, there were places such as Egypt and Rome. Beyond such broad statements of fact almost everything in the bible is just made up, just like all the other "holy" books you reject as just made up but others say are factual.
This is no such evidence.
Right, you know more than all the trained historians and archaeologists. Very impressive.
That is, until a cursory examination of New Atheism reveals the movement is adept at making its victims believe they are far better at reasoning and far more qualified to comment on matters of which they know nothing, than they actually are. The mythers are one of the more prominent examples.
I leave you to continue impressing everyone with your expert analysis that is in no way just spouting off nonsensical, anti-Christian New Atheist propaganda. Bravo.
StardustyPsyche,
That was easy.
Not a sonnet.
Tacitus wrote c 116 about some guy rumored to have lived far away and long ago.
He wrote the the Annals and the Histories, using carefully sourced materials.
The only concordance is with some others who repeated the same rumors.
Not his style. He called out rumors as such when he wrote them.
"He met characters mentioned in the gospels"
The anonymous writers just had to read the OT and Paul and make up stuff to match,
Except Paul wrote first and identified Peter and James.
...people like you who don't understand the basics of how all that ancient mythology bullshit was easily made up.
That you say this without a hint of irony is pretty amusing.
StardustyPsyche said...
Then, some 80 years later a couple Romans wrote about the rumors from far away and long ago, that supposedly happened before they were even born or adults.
Josephus would have in Jerusalem, and as a member of the priestly, knew the men involved in his writing of Annals XX.9
"Not a sonnet."
I'm not going to write out the whole thing, it isn't that hard for any basic story teller. Writing in period style or in the style of an individual is pretty simple for a writer who has some motivation to do so, such as a desire to tell a fraudulent story.
"using carefully sourced materials."
Ha ha ha. Carefully sourced accounts of Jesus 80 years later, funny.
"Except Paul wrote first and identified Peter and James"
Yes, he wrote his dreams of Jesus, and named some people he made up, so what?
There is no evidence for Jesus, period, just a few scraps of rumors and mythology.
That used to be a pretty controversial statement, but not anymore. A very great deal has been written about how utterly lacking the Jesus story is in any actual evidence.
There are no contemporaneous accounts.
There are no writings from Jesus himself.
There are no drawings, sculptures, or likenesses of Jesus.
There is no archeological evidence of Jesus.
Now, this is supposedly the son of god, and incarnation of god, the creator of the universe, the most important person ever, a being of infinite power!!!
Yet, no contemporaneous accounts, not direct writings, no likenesses, no archeological evidence. Nothing. A total blank, for the most important and consequential person ever.
I would say it takes a certain kind of gullible person to be so easily lied to and tricked as you obviously are, but the unfortunate fact is that there are billions of people just as gullible as you.
""using carefully sourced materials.""
Really hilarious.
Josephus was born c 37 and died c 100. He was not in any way a witness to any supposed Jesus.
"History" is written by the victors, and Josephus went over to the Roman side. He had his own political reasons for writing what he wrote, hardly a disinterested objective author.
Further, the forgeries of Josephus are so bad they are recognizable as such.
For a good writer of serials and scripts, such as soap operas, sequels, made for TV dramas, paperback mysteries, etc, it is pretty easy to copy style and vocabulary to hide the forgery. But some forgers don't have that talent and just scrawl in whatever lies support their claims, and that is what happened with Josephus in parts.
Josephus, like the anonymous writers of the gospels, wrote down the rumors many decades after the supposed "fact", if he wrote at all of Jesus, because much of what the forgers wrote was forged so badly that it is obviously fake.
And that is as good as it gets for the most important person to ever have lived!!!
People like you go around smugly commenting on how beautiful the emperor's clothes are, and that is the majority, chiding anybody who does not join your fantasy cult. Due to social pressure and conditioning most people will join that sort of mass psychosis, the endless chanting of the same idiotic lies over and over and over, scoffing at anyone who says the obvious, that the emperor has no clothes.
There is no history of Jesus.
No archeology of Jesus.
No records of Jesus.
No likenesses of Jesus.
No contemporaneous accounts of Jesus.
Nothing written by Jesus himself.
Not even 1 single solitary scrap.
Zero.
Is that the best the creator of the universe, the omnipotent one, the most important person ever, can do? You actually believe that? Does it ever bother you to be so daft?
What's it like, literally never being wrong about anything? Like One Brow's religious beliefs, for example?
2000 years of scholarship and expertise mean nothing to Stardusty. She enjoys living on the peak of Mt. Stupid and nobody is going to convince her to move.
StardustyPsyche said...
I'm not going to write out the whole thing,
Wise, as it would disprove the claim you are trying to make. You would make vocabulary errors, grammar errors, etc.
Ha ha ha. Carefully sourced accounts of Jesus 80 years later, funny.
Why?
... and named some people he made up, so what?
James historicity is not in questions, except by loons.
A very great deal has been written about how utterly lacking the Jesus story is in any actual evidence.
Voluminous ignorant babble is still ignorant babble.
Now, this is supposedly the son of god
I'm discussing the evidence for an ordinary human. All the "son of god" is irrelevant to me and should be to you.
A total blank, for the most important and consequential person ever.
Not a total blank, and an ordinary human, AFAIK.
I would say it takes a certain kind of gullible person to be so easily lied to and tricked as you obviously are,
The irony of this coming from a Mythicist is laughable.
Josephus was born c 37 and died c 100. He was not in any way a witness to any supposed Jesus.
Never said he was.
...Josephus went over to the Roman side. He had his own political reasons for writing what he wrote, hardly a disinterested objective author.
Conspiracy theories? Really?
Further, the forgeries of Josephus are so bad they are recognizable as such.
Indeed, you can sort out the forgery from the legitimate.
...it is pretty easy to copy style and vocabulary to hide the forgery.
Examples?
Josephus, ...
would have directly known the men who executed James.
Kevin said...
What's it like, literally never being wrong about anything? Like One Brow's religious beliefs, for example
It's a good lesson for me to avoid sounding like that.
It's a good lesson for me to avoid sounding like that.
Anyone can talk about Josephus without inherently declaring himself a believer. You didn't say anything misleading.
Kevin,
"What's it like, literally never being wrong about anything? Like One Brow's religious beliefs, for example?"
I never made a claim about OBs religious beliefs.
Do you hold opinions you believe to be incorrect? Just wondering.
"I'm discussing the evidence for an ordinary human."
That has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.
Of course there was a man named Jesus living at that time.
I say pastor Bob, who died in 1958, was actually god. I wrote that down in 1998. And you know what, there really was a pastor Bod, so there your go, the historicity of Bob-god.
Jesus was a character in the mythology now called the New Testament. There is no historical record of that character.
No contemporaneous accounts.
No letters to that character.
No letters from that character.
No self identified witnesses.
No likenesses.
No contemporaneous court records.
Nothing at all, no historicity of Jesus at all, zero.
Just saying "there was a man named Jesus at that time" is idiotic as an attempt at the historicity of the Jesus character.
There are always lots of Jesuses. There are many Jesuses today. The men living today named Jesus do nothing to demonstrate a modern existence of the Jesus character and the men living in the past named Jesus do nothing to demonstrate the past existence of the character Jesus.
Learn how to think for yourself.
Is that the best the creator of the universe, the omnipotent one, the most important person ever, can do? You actually believe that? Does it ever bother you to be so daft?
You asked this of One Brow. Odd question to ask someone you don't assume believes in God, particularly coupled with the unnecessary insult.
There is no historical record of that character.
Yes there is
StardustyPsyche said...
That has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.
Of course there was a man named Jesus living at that time.
There were many, but the man I'm referring was an ordinary human and an apocalyptic preacher whose followers started the Christian church.
"There were many, but the man I'm referring was an ordinary human and an apocalyptic preacher whose followers started the Christian church."
There is no history of any such man, zero.
Josephus was not even alive when that mythological character was supposedly killed on a cross.
A couple paragraphs are attributed to Josephus, supposedly written decades later, but really just Christian forgeries, like so much other fakery by Christians.
Paul only dreamed of Jesus, never even claimed to have met him in the flesh.
The gospel of "Mark" is anonymous, the dishonest Christians just lied about that too, about being written by "Mark".
The other gospels are later embellishments of "Mark" more anonymous fairy tales that kept adding more and more bizarre and fanciful lies told long, long after the supposed fact, and also anonymously, with the church lying some more by calling the "Matthew", "Luke", and "John". More Christian fraud.
Then, well into the next century, another repeater of rumors supposedly wrote a few words.
No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero. No history of this supposed Jesus at all.
Dishonest people are like this.
Of course there was a man named Jesus living at that time.
There is no history of any such man, zero.
StardustyPsyche said...
There is no history of any such man, zero.
This is a false statement.
Josephus was not even alive when that mythological character was supposedly killed on a cross.
Josephus was alive and in Jerusalem that man's brother was stoned to death. Mythological figures don't have historical siblings.
A couple paragraphs are attributed to Josephus, supposedly written decades later, but really just Christian forgeries, like so much other fakery by Christians.
One reference is partially fake, the other shows no signs of fakery.
Paul only dreamed of Jesus, never even claimed to have met him in the flesh.
Agreed. He met the same brother Josephus wrote about.
I have no intention of disputing your comments about the gospels although my take on them differs from yours.
Then, well into the next century, another repeater of rumors supposedly wrote a few words.
Your desperation to discredit Tacitus has led you to swallow modern-day myths as facts.
No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero.
This is standard for men like Jesus from this timeframe.
SP: No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero.
And yet she also says.
Of course there was a man named Jesus living at that time.
The deceitfulness is there for all to see.
SteveK
"The deceitfulness is there for all to see."
Are you trying to be daft?
There was a man named Jesus, and Sam, and Bob, and Frank, and Jose, and a lot of other men with a lot of names in a lot of places and a lot of times. So what?
That has nothing to do with the historicity of the Jesus character in the bible.
There is no history of the Jesus character in the bible. Pointing to some guy named Jesus is totally irrelevant to the historicity of the Jesus character in the bible.
What part of that don't you get?
OK, there really was a guy named Harry in the UK. Therefore the Harry in Harry Potter is historical?
How stupid are you?
"Josephus was alive and in Jerusalem that man's brother was stoned to death."
Some copy of a copy of a copy centuries after the supposed fact tell a story about a man with the same first name as the name used in a fictional story written by an anonymous author in a copy of a copy of a copy and in those stories a couple worda claim that this man by the same first name as this other figure in this other story were supposedly the brother of some other mythological figure for which there is no historical record at all.
But, Christians just want to believe, and the mythology has been repeated so many times that others fall for the lies too.
"One reference is partially fake, the other shows no signs of fakery."
Shhuuurrr, it is only a partial lie, so ok, yah caught me in a lie about half the story but the other half of my story is for reals.
But actually, no, besides the textual clues of the "interpolation" (lies told by Christians in Christian forgeries) there is the fact that no references are made to these important passages until centuries later, when such references to this "interpolation" (Christian fraud) began to appear.
"Your desperation to discredit Tacitus"
Tacitus had no credit to write a "history" of the Jesus figure at all. He just repeated the stories.
***No letters to or from Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, no likenesses at all, no artifacts, no court records, no eye witness accounts, nothing. Zero.***
"This is standard for men like Jesus from this timeframe."
At last we agree. "Men" like Jesus from this timeframe are mythological figures in fictional stories set in that timeframe, so of course there is no historical evidence for them.
We have historical evidence for people in general from the time period. We know that human beings inhabited that region because we have archeological evidence for human beings from that general area. We know people wrote a lot of stories and we know a lot of the languages used and the characters in those stories because we have fragments of such writings.
So, we have a lot of historical evidence at a high level, or a general level, and many details that somebody, we don't know who, must have manufactured.
But we have almost no historical evidence for individual people from that time period, including the figures in the mythological stories that were copied repeatedly.
Nearly everything in the Bible is myth, fiction, or forgeries. The Bible starts with the mythology of the 6 day creation and ends with the mythology of apocalypse.
There was no historical figure of Noah, Moses, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or Jesus. Those are just lies told by Jews and Christians. Mythological stories if you prefer.
For example, just the words "The Gospel According to Mark" is a lie. Christians just made up that lie, and the lie about Matthew, the lie about Luke, and the lie about John because telling those lies was helpful to them to sell their story.
Christians lied about much of the bible that is known to be fakes, frauds (so called "interpolations"). The lies told by Christians range from the obvious and easily identified to the more subtle.
Why anybody would believe anything from a book so riddled with lies is a mystery to me. It has always seemed like a very great deal of nonsense to me.
If your goal is to prove that New Atheists have no clue what they're talking about, ever, on topics related to the god they deny but that still makes them cry online all the time to people who couldn't care less and pity them for the Dawkins mind virus they fell victim to, then a better job could not be done. I applaud you.
If the goal is to prove you know something that crackpot Richard Carrier didn't feed you as reinforcement for the conclusion you're ideologically obligated to rationalize, you've failed utterly.
Either way, highly entertaining. Perhaps that's your goal.
SP What part of that don't you get?
I don't get why you enjoy being so dishonest. You have 2 different standards of evidence for historical people. You aren't an honest seeker of the truth. Everything you said to about Jesus Christ to dismiss the reality of his actual life can also be said about a man named Jesus living at the same time and place. There are no letters to or from a man named Jesus, nobody wrote down his words at the time, there are no likenesses at all, etc, etc.
If SP was an honest seeker of the truth she would conclude that most historical figures didn't actually exist because (insert her reasons why Jesus didn't actually exist). SP won't go that far because she is a dishonest person and she takes pride in that.
StardustyPsyche said...
Some copy of a copy of a copy centuries after the supposed fact tell a story about a man with the same first name as the name used in a fictional story written by an anonymous author in a copy of a copy of a copy and in those stories a couple worda claim that this man by the same first name as this other figure in this other story were supposedly the brother of some other mythological figure for which there is no historical record at all.
Same first name and appellation ('James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ'). Unless you put forth some other claimants for these men, this is both a unique identification and a historical record.
...that no references are made to these important passages ...
These passages are only important in a discussion with Mythicists, a recent phenomenon.
Tacitus ...just repeated the stories.
This is what I meant about your desperation. Tacitus did not just repeat stories, that wasn't his style.
At last we agree. "Men" like Jesus from this timeframe are mythological figures in fictional stories set in that timeframe, so of course there is no historical evidence for them.
We have no contemporaneous accounts of Hannibal Barca, who opposed Rome in three Punic wars. Is he a "mythological figure"? Is the Egyptian prophet a "mythological figure"?
So, we have a lot of historical evidence at a high level, or a general level, and many details that somebody, we don't know who, must have manufactured.
So, there was no research or verification of facts by ancient historians, and they just made things up ("manufactured")?
There was no historical figure of Noah, Moses, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or Jesus.
I agree on most of these.
"We have no contemporaneous accounts of Hannibal Barca, who opposed Rome in three Punic wars. Is he a "mythological figure"?"
Maybe, I have not studied the other evidence for a historical Hannibal Barca.
"Is the Egyptian prophet a "mythological figure"?"
Again, maybe. Moses was an Egyptian prophet as portrayed in Jewish mythology, and he is mythological.
"So, there was no research or verification of facts by ancient historians, and they just made things up ("manufactured")?"
There is a lot of truth to the old sayings:
"History is written by the victors"
"History is bunk"
Even with all the modern technologies of communications, libraries, and information networks even modern historians distort history according to political and religious pressures where they work. For example, Palestinian children are taught a much different history than Israeli children.
*There was no historical figure of Noah, Moses, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or Jesus.*
"I agree on most of these."
Not long ago that statement would have got you branded as a kook. At least you made progress on, I imagine, 6 of the 7 I listed.
I doubt you were inclined to cheat at school, few people did, really, but still, new technology has been brought into use that makes copying and plagiarism almost impossible to get away with now. In the past the grader had to rely an human recognition, now submitted papers and even submitted computer programs or any kind of submission is algorithmically checked against a vast database of other student submissions, and the global library of human works.
Here is an interesting application of similar new technology to Josephus, and what this researched discovered is a link between Josephus and "Luke".
https://josephus.org/LUKECH.html
Richard Carrier has famously been criticized as using unconventional methodologies, such as Bayes theorem, in analyzing historical probabilities.
But historians are going to have to move over. There is a new breed of researchers who apply CAT scans, detailed materials analysis, DNA analysis, and textual algorithms that analyze the entire body of virtually all known works of antiquity using computer algorithms, sophisticated mathematics, advanced physics, and a whole suite of modern scientific analytical techniques.
I mean, just read this and think about it:
" For reference the Testimonium is repeated here:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon an accusation by the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these things and countless other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities 18.63)"
Hang on, this was written by a Jew? A Roman provincial ruler? A man who was born years after "Jesus" died?
Does that even make sense?
The paragraph flatly states "He was the Christ."
Uhm, really? A powerful Roman provincial ruler Jew said that? "Christ"? As in messiah?
If he really believed that why was he not a Christian?
The figure of Jesus was nothing like the messiah foretold by Jewish prophecy.
The flat statement that "He was the Christ" makes no sense coming from a Jew.
Supposedly Josephus, the Roman ruler Jew, also said this, flatly stating:
"He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these things and countless other marvels about him."
Really? A Jew believed in the resurrection of Jesus?
The prophets described a messiah that would lead the Jews to defeat their captors, not a dying and resurrected Christ.
It should be pretty obvious just by reading the text that a Christian forged this passage.
You can find out more about this from Rabbi Tovi Singer. Jews are generally pretty good at calling BS on the Jesus story, and Singer has done a lot of research into when references to Josephus appear.
It turns out, according to Singer, that no references were made to this passage for hundreds of years, whereas Josephus's other works were widely referenced in that period. References to this passage began much later after the Christian forger added it.
https://historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
New Atheism is built on the conclusion "God does not exist", and then any argument or evidence presented is considered in whatever manner it takes to allow not a single concession that something could possibly be evidence. Dawkins finally confessed in his old age that nothing could even in principle count as evidence to him, but most New Atheists still pretend they are open to argument or evidence.
They aren't.
Jurors 1-8: "The evidence is pretty strong. Guilt!"
Jurors 9-11: "The evidence is kinda weak. Innocent!"
New Atheist Juror 12: "There is NO evidence. Zero, Zilch, None. You're all gullible idiots!"
lol
StardustyPsyche said...
Here is an interesting application of similar new technology to Josephus, and what this researched discovered is a link between Josephus and "Luke".
https://josephus.org/LUKECH.html
The Testimonium Flavianum has known to be at let partially fraudulent for centuries. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the Tacitus reference nor the later account of the stoning of James.
"historyforatheists"
In reality, there is only one history, not a special history for atheists, the fact of what did in truth occur.
The idea that the passage is a partial fraud (or using the Christian whitewash of Christian lies term "interpolation") is pretty pathetic.
Just the parts that are so obviously idiotically fraudulent are fake, the rest is for reals!
Christians cling to such nonsense because that is all they have. There is no history of Jesus, there is no archeology of Jesus.
There are a bunch of Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings goofy stories about Jesus and a gazillion other mythological figures, plus there are a couple forged paragraphs supposedly written several decades later, and then there are a few more distant rumor reports supposedly written lifetimes later.
That's it. No history of Jesus whatsoever, obviously.
But hey, there is really a Kings Cross Station in the UK and there really was a guy named Harry in the UK and we have multiply attested stories of Harry so Harry Potter is a historical figure, just like Jesus Christ!
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
---Arthur Schopenhauer
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.
---Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi
Noah, Moses, Romulus, Remus, Jesus, Thor, Gabriel, Moroni and on and on and on.
Self evidently mythological indeed. There is no history of these ancient mythological figures, obviously, duh, how can you be so daft?
"Jurors 1-8: "The evidence is pretty strong. Guilt!"
Jurors 9-11: "The evidence is kinda weak. Innocent!"
New Atheist Juror 12: "There is NO evidence. Zero, Zilch, None. You're all gullible idiots!""
So, the prosecution presents some anonymous fairytale stories about walking on water and masses of people raising out of their graves and a bizarre census that never took place and on and on and on.
Also the prosecution presents a couple forged paragraphs supposedly written decades later for for which we only have copies from hundreds of years later and no reference was made to them in the mean time whereas references to other works of the author were made in the gap period.
Plus the prosecution presents a paragraph written based on rumors a century old first appearing yet another century later.
Juror number 12 asks out loud if maybe the judge was drunk or bribed to even allow that "evidence" into the courtroom, and how the eff are you nitwits even considering this gibberish? There are thousands of stories like this in paperback, goofy movies, and spooky stories told around the campfire.
Those stories can be good fun, I suppose, but what kind of kook actually thinks they are real?
"Dawkins finally confessed in his old age that nothing could even in principle count as evidence to him,"
False, that is up to god to figure out, being omnipotent and omniscient and all that.
I think I am real, and the sun is real, and the people around me are real, so I am pretty sure god could convince me it is real if god really wanted to. I mean, after being hidden all my life and all of a sudden somebody shows up making a lot of unsupported claims, right, pretty hard to see how such a person could be convincing at all.
But if I had grown up with god, being omnipresent and all, god would have been everywhere for everyone all the time, sort of like air, or the Earth. I think air and Earth are real stuff, not really the way I perceive them, but real stuff I have some kind of basic perception of. God could be like that, except, nope, all we have is a lot of goofy stories.
God, apparently, likes the game of hide and go seek. Hiding behind thousands of years of mystery, leaving no historical record, just a massive library of mutually contradictory fanciful stories.
Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Islamic mythology, Native American mythology, Japanese mythology, African mythology, Indian mythology, Nordic mythology, Jewish mythology.
In these mythologies are thousands of stories of fantastical gods and spirits and special people who do all manner of wonderous deeds.
For some weird reason you think the Jewish mythology is somehow the one real one.
StardustyPsyche said...
"historyforatheists"
In reality, there is only one history, not a special history for atheists, the fact of what did in truth occur.
The site is devoted to correcting historical errors frequently propagated by atheists, such as the origins of various holidays.
Also the prosecution presents a couple forged paragraphs supposedly written decades later for for which we only have copies from hundreds of years later and no reference was made to them in the mean time whereas references to other works of the author were made in the gap period.
There is no reason to suspect the Tacitus reference or the Josephus account of the stoning of James are forgeries.
Plus the prosecution presents a paragraph written based on rumors ...
Do you have non-circular evidence the paragraph as based on rumors?
False
True. Dawkins admitted to Peter Boghossian that even the Second Coming wouldn't persuade him, as he would find [actual] hallucination or aliens more likely.
Those stories can be good fun, I suppose, but what kind of kook actually thinks they are real?
The people who lived through them and died believing that they were real. Those people.
I don't take advice from so-called rationalists who say they experience periodic hallucinations (not illusions) without taking drugs. That kind of mental instability requires professional help.
"Dawkins admitted to Peter Boghossian that even the Second Coming wouldn't persuade him, as he would find [actual] hallucination or aliens more likely."
Indeed, but that is not comprehensive of potential evidences.
First, there is the unimaginable evidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being could presumable provide.
That's god's job, not mine. If god really is all those things and has all those infinite powers it is up to god to figure out how to persuade me.
If god is incapable of persuading me with evidence then god lacks infinite power, now doesn't it?
I, being finite, having lived a life absent god, cannot imagine any singular event that would be convincing, but so what? My imagination is finite.
I am open to the infinite evidence and infinite persuasion of an infinite god. So far, crickets.
"Do you have non-circular evidence the paragraph as based on rumors?"
That's all later writers had.
They wrote, supposedly, far away and lifetimes after the supposed events.
In terms of specific passages, for example from Josephus, clearly the author of the passage is just making it up because even the plain text makes no sense for a Jew to have written.
Also, and you can check Tovia Singer on this if you like, later commentators would refer to Josephus in antiquity. Such commentators did not refer to the passages about Jesus in the time period where they otherwise would reasonably be expected to do so.
Then, later, after a long gap of silence, references began to appear.
So, put it together
1.No contemporaneous accounts.
2.Dozens of known forgeries in circulation telling similar fanciful stories.
3.Silence from later commentators on that supposed passage for a long period during which reference to other works of Josephus were common.
4.The appearance of an absurdly bad forgery written in a manner no Jew would write.
5.Then references to that passage begin to appear, centuries later.
Believing in the historicity of Jewish mythology is just as dumb as believing in the historicity of Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Nordic mythology, or any other mythology.
The only reason so many people take the idiotic Jewish mythology seriously is because it is the mythology of the victors. Christians conquered pretty much the whole world, and in the process destroyed other mythologies as much as possible and pushed their mythology as real.
Indeed, but that is not comprehensive of potential evidences.
Dawkins on what would count as evidence:
Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.
"Nothing" is pretty comprehensive, especially if the Second Coming itself wouldn't faze his commitment to atheism.
If god is incapable of persuading me with evidence then god lacks infinite power, now doesn't it?
Since god doesn't exist, I wouldn't expect it to do much of anything.
StardustyPsyche said...
"Do you have non-circular evidence the paragraph as based on rumors?"
That's all later writers had.
Tacitus would have had access to Roman records as they existed in the early second century, and Josephus as writing about his home town.
In terms of specific passages, for example from Josephus, clearly the author of the passage is just making it up because even the plain text makes no sense for a Jew to have written.
There are two Josephus passages, and his account of the stoning of James has no conflict with his Judaism.
Such commentators did not refer to the passages about Jesus in the time period where they otherwise would reasonably be expected to do so.
Why would they? What about the account of the stoning of James would be relevant?
So, put it together
You're missing a few puzzle pieces.
Believing in the historicity of Jewish mythology ...
Disbelieving an event or a person because someone mythologized them is just as stupid.
"Disbelieving an event or a person because someone mythologized them is just as stupid."
Agreed. The disciples had experiences with Jesus that they thought were actual appearances and their lives were transformed as a result - to the point of dying for that belief. They didn't think Jesus was a non-existing person. SP is a kook.
Dawkins, if he were the 13th disciple during the time of Jesus, would say his experiences of Jesus were hallucinations. Would you trust the testimony of disciple Dawkins who says he had reoccurring hallucinations of Jesus doing miracles, or would you trust the testimony of several others who said "what we saw really happened"?
Would you trust the testimony of disciple Dawkins who says he had reoccurring hallucinations of Jesus doing miracles, or would you trust the testimony of several others who said "what we saw really happened"?
You're dealing with a subgroup of atheists whose level of reasoning is "We do not see people raising from the dead. Therefore Jesus, who did not exist, did not raise from the dead. Therefore god [sic] does not exist."
They would trust Dawkins.
Or this...
Disciple Dawkins: "Miracles don't happen. My lying eyes are telling me that I am seeing something that did not actually happen. My mind isn't working correctly and I don't know why. Regardless, my experiences should be taken seriously because I'm smarter than the other disciples. Therefore Jesus, who did not exist, did not perform any miracles"
"Tacitus would have had access to Roman records"
And what exactly are these supposed "Roman records? You are just making that up out of your imagination.
" stoning of James"
Sure, lots of guys were stoned, maybe somebody who got stoned was named "James".
"I heard a story about a guy named James and in that story the guy named James was supposedly stoned and he was also rumored to be the brother of another guy rumored to be named Jesus."
How absurd. You actually take that sort of thing seriously?
"Disbelieving an event or a person because someone mythologized"
There isn't any historical evidence for a Jesus to be mythologized. Jesus simply is a myth, like hundreds or thousands of other ancient myths.
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
In other words, once caught in a lie a source is no longer credible.
The bible is cover to cover lies
6 day creation - lie
Noah flood - lie
Moses - lie
The gospel according to Matthew - lie (it is not according to any known person)
The gospel according to Mark - lie (it is not according to any known person)
The gospel according to Luke - lie (it is not according to any known person)
The gospel according to John - lie (it is not according to any known person)
Most of new testament is forgery, the lie of writing something and then falsely claiming it was written by somebody else.
"Josephus" on Jesus is a lie, obviously, just read it. You don't even need deep scholarly analysis, although such analysis confirms the obvious fact that "Josephus" on Jesus is a lie.
And that is it, that is all Christians have, lies on top of lies on top of lies.
Pretty obvious, just like all the other myths you understand and obviously not historical.
I mean, you do not seriously think the Greek gods existed, or the Nordic gods existed, or the Egyptian gods existed.
Reading the stories is like reading any fiction paperback, or adventure fiction, or any fantasy fiction. It is all good fun if you are an intelligent person who understands it is all fiction, but in the periods of prevalence some of these stories are actually taken as real by great masses of people, people who will sometimes even fight and die in defense of their particular story.
""Nothing" is pretty comprehensive"
Nope, not comprehensive at all.
"Nothing" in this context is that given what has transpired so far there isn't anything further that could be demonstrated in the future.
*If god is incapable of persuading me with evidence then god lacks infinite power, now doesn't it?*
"Since god doesn't exist, I wouldn't expect it to do much of anything."
Right, and that is what we observe, not much of anything that would even hint at a god.
However, if god did exist with all those marvelous powers and if such a god really wanted us to believe then I am sure god could have done a great many things differently from the beginning.
I am convinced the Earth, sun, air, and people around me are real. God could have been like those things.
Instead we get some idiotic stories about some unrecorded guy among a small tribe a couple thousand years ago, and that guy was supposedly god!!! Stupid does not even begin to describe the absurdity of the Jesus-god.
" stoning of James"
More Christian lies.
Christian leaders, Christian writers, lie a very great deal.
In general, Christians are huge liars. Not so much the average Christian today, but just turn on the TV and listen to the preachers scamming for money, liars that only the gullible believe and send money to.
The Christian liars just made another obvious forgery with the James passage.
Here Josephus goes on to discuss Jesus, and Jesus again. But wait, those are other guys!
*and now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus,*
Well, the analysis goes on for a long time, but it becomes pretty obvious this is just another Christian "interpolation" (lie), with the story being about other characters, not the mythological characters portrayed in the Christian lies of the Gospel according to .
Talk about smoke and mirrors!
No contemporaneous accounts.
Forged accounts in the so called Gospel According to
Forged accounts that only appear much later in "Josephus"
Still later rumor reports
That's it, that's all Christians have, later forgeries and rumor reports.
Not a shred of evidence beyond the "evidence" for a historical Harry Potter (There are historically factual Harry guys in the UK and Kings Cross Station is a historically real place, after all).
"Nothing" in this context is that given what has transpired so far there isn't anything further that could be demonstrated in the future.
You just made that up. Dawkins, like all New Atheists, has absolutely no idea what he's talking about regarding anything religious, particularly Christianity.
However, if god did exist with all those marvelous powers and if such a god really wanted us to believe then I am sure god could have done a great many things differently from the beginning.
I have no idea what "god" would do, since I've never heard of anyone who believes in "god".
God is omniscient. God knows who has been given enough to believe. For those people, there's no reason to do things differently. If you believe you haven't been given enough then you can attempt to argue with God in a losing battle of 'Your beliefs versus God's knowledge'. Good luck.
StardustyPsyche said...
And what exactly are these supposed "Roman records? You are just making that up out of your imagination.
You think the Roman Empire was held together without records? I thought you did not believe in miracles.
How absurd. You actually take that sort of thing seriously?
Since Josephus would have personally known the witnesses, yes.
There isn't any historical evidence for a Jesus to be mythologized.
Since you have been discussing/dismissing the evidence, you know it exists. Why the lie?
In other words, once caught in a lie a source is no longer credible.
There goes General Relativity.
I mean, you do not seriously think the Greek gods existed, or the Nordic gods existed, or the Egyptian gods existed.
I think human preachers existed.
StardustyPsyche said...
" stoning of James"
More Christian lies.
Josephus was not Christian.
In general, Christians are huge liars.
Humans in general are liars.
The Christian liars just made another obvious forgery with the James passage.
Non-circular evidence for this claim?
Here Josephus goes on to discuss Jesus, and Jesus again. But wait, those are other guys!
*and now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus,*
Was and is, a common name. Which of them was "called Christ"?
Well, the analysis goes on for a long time,
What analysis?
but it becomes pretty obvious this is just another Christian "interpolation" (lie),
Evidence for this claim?
Forged accounts that only appear much later in "Josephus"
One partially forged, one valid, until you have evidence otherwise.
That's it, that's all Christians have, later forgeries and rumor reports.
It's more than we have for similar figures.
"You think the Roman Empire was held together without records?"
Obviously you have no specific information or evidence regarding any supposed records of Jesus. You are just making that up out of your imagination, that somehow somebody had some records of Jesus.
No such records survive or are even referenced by later writers.
"Since Josephus would have personally known the witnesses, yes."
More imagination. "Josephus" does not cite any supposed witnesses he supposedly "knew" or any reason to suspect such wild old stories from before Josephus was even born had a shred of truth to them.
"There goes General Relativity."
You obviously know as little about science as you do about the Jesus stories.
GR does not depend on believing stories from an old novel. It gets verified again and again by a wide variety of methods, which is why we know GR is not comprehensive.
"Josephus was not Christian."
Now you are catching on.
"Josephus" wrote like a Christian, but he was not a Christian.
A Christian liar forged those passages.
New Atheist ignorance and bigotry on full display. Amazing that they simply cannot be taught anything due to their irrational hatred of Christ.
StardustyPsyche said...
Obviously you have no specific information or evidence regarding any supposed records of Jesus. You are just making that up out of your imagination, that somehow somebody had some records of Jesus.
Just as obviously, you have no specific information or evidence regarding the non-existence of such records.
"Josephus" does not cite any supposed witnesses he supposedly "knew"...
We know he was a member of the priestly class and in Jerusalem at the time "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James" was stoned.
...stories from before Josephus was even born ...
I have been referring only to an event within his adulthood.
You obviously know as little about science as you do about the Jesus stories.
I know it predicts point singularities within ordinary matter. Hence, by your standards, it is not credible.
"Josephus" wrote like a Christian, but he was not a Christian.
There is nothing in Antiquities XX.9.1 that indicates a Christian writer.
A Christian liar forged those passages.
I await non-circular evidence.
Still, "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired" (Swift). You are obviously emotionally attached to Mythicism.
"I await non-circular evidence."
Already provided multiple times.
I suppose it is comfortable for you being one of the sheep.
StardustyPsyche said:
The bible is cover to cover lies
6 day creation - lie
Noah flood - lie
Moses - lie
The gospel according to Matthew - lie (it is not according to any known person)
The gospel according to Mark - lie (it is not according to any known person)
The gospel according to Luke - lie (it is not according to any known person)
The gospel according to John - lie (it is not according to any known person)
Why did they "lie"? What purpose was intended to be served by each listed "lie"?
StardustyPsyche said...
"I await non-circular evidence."
Already provided multiple times.
You have provided zero evidence that any section of Antiquities XX.9.1 was forged. Many claims, zero evidence. Your irrationality on this is clear.
Post a Comment