And they say, "There's no Evidence ... !!!"

[childeye 2]

rebutted soundly by Lee Strobel and J Warner Wallace

rebutted years ago

Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity


you are neatly sidestepping the whole debate and the cause of & definition of Faith = trust in the testimony of credible eyewitnesses

2 Peter 1:16

no human in history has blindly believed the claims of the Apostles about the resurrection of Jesus. No human who ever heard the claim was not initially skeptical. Every human who ever heard the claim was initially sceptical.

What many people have come to trust that Saint Peter in Saint Paul and the Apostles in the New Testament authors were trustworthy people. And that it's Less likely that they were wrong or lying then that the resurrection and supernatural miracles did not occur.

I witnessed testimony from credible believable trustworthy person. Is evidence it is accepted as direct evidence in every court of law on earth? You cannot say there is no evidence there is EXTRAORDINARY evidence given by the extraordinary transformation of the Apostles. Upon witnessing ( What they themselves came to believe was) the resurrection.

The only thing there is not is CNN, Fox News video coverage.



rebutted

THAT'S a very good question

however, rebutted years ago by the same authors i referenced

all of the non-canonical gospels are PROVABLY late

for example, the Gospel of Thomas quotes the Diatesseron in Syriac... Same words same order

Syriac Diatesseron = 175-200ad

with cause, the three synoptic gospels, which were based on the book of Mark, were circulating amongst Christians from ~60ad...

the others were largely plagiarized by much later "upstarts" like Marcion

yes, ones they concocted



Mohamed, allegedly a prophet, may have been influenced by those "alternative" Christianities


violates accepted Scripture,risen Jesus had wounds, ate meals, etc.


again, non canonical gospels are probably false by text critical means, text criticism, eg. Details and names not consonant with first century Judah


exactly why orthodoxy won out


except that orthodoxy won out, predictably

if we were both Spock Vulcan logical, this discussion would quickly boil down to either orthodox Christianity...the resurrection actually occurred

or the Islamic view, that the resurrection APPEARED to actually occur

but, if you accept that "impostor" view... Then how is it everyone on all sides were fooled?

John the beloved apostle and Mary mother of Jesus stood at the foot of the cross for hours? How is it they were fooled?

But if you say they were in on it? Then, how is it that pilot and Ananias and Caiaphas and the entire Jewish Sanhedrin. All of Jesus is enemies who wanted him crucified and also dealt with him all morning for hours on end? How is it that they were all fooled?

So if you then say that Jesus really was crucified and that an impostor took over his role AFTER the crucifixion. Then you have the same problem? How is it that the impostor? Fooled. All of the Apostles into thinking that he was really the risen Jesus, fooling them. So thoroughly that they all went to their executions, claiming that he was the real deal.

And once again if you say that they were all somehow in on the conspiracy, then what about Saint Paul. He was an ardent opponent? He was a pharisee. On the side of the Sanhedrin and they hostile Jewish authorities. But he said he saw the risen Jesus and so became a Christian.

Once again everyone on every side of the issue agreed that Jesus appeared to be risen. And the appearance of the risen Christ was so convincing that everyone went to their martyrdoms and executions for their testimony.

For 2000 years, the logic has been like this Saint Peter and Saint Paul were honest caring. Generous kind hearted men. Who always appeared to tell the truth and who devoted their lives to charity and social justice? They were activists for the poor. Their care and concern healed people. They certainly appeared to be the most trustworthy people in history.

They gave everyone their words of Honor that they had witnessed Jesus Christ crucified and then resurrected. They told everybody that they could trust their word. They gave them their word of Honor and they were executed dying for their word of Honor without changing or retracting their testimony.

So caught between a rock and a hard place caught between the improbability of a resurrection event and the improbability of Saint Peter and Saint Paul either lying or being deceptive...

for two thousand years, people have, weighing the evidence, chosen to accept the claims and testimony of Saint Peter in Saint Paul that resurrection actually occurred

that's the faith. That's the TRUSTING in What certainly seems by all appearances to be completely credible eyewitness testimony.

Really good post,... However, I would respectfully take issue with how you articulated the 'trusting' in credible eyewitness testimony part. Only in that for one it may be misunderstood by implication that the Holy Spirit does not personally testify to Christ within every true believer concerning the Christ, and therefore may obscure the fact that such eyewitness testimony has no actual relevance when it comes to understanding the Gospel. And also it may be mistaken for what the term faith is alluding to.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thanks for the response. As pertains to existing, the Christian definition of God as a Creator is generally applied as an axiom. But I doubt that this was the definition you were meaning to denote, because the statements you made in post #2 would then be illogical in concept since an axiom would require no proof, being self evident.

Also if I may point out for the sake of clarity, a 'description' of God, is not the same as a 'definition' for the term 'God'.

Why do you believe that God exists?

 

[childeye 2]

Why do you believe that God exists?

The term God is an axiom and is therefore self evident, subsequently I must say that God must exist if I am to correctly articulate the meaning.

To elaborate further, I know that the energy that created the universe came from somewhere and the term God is being used as an axiom pertaining to what, or in the personal form Who, that somewhere/someone is. Without God (source of energy) there is no universe = There is a universe therefore there is God (source of energy). This is accepted logic applicable in deductive reasoning and even proven in mathematical equations such as Einstein's E=mc2 theory of relativity.

Your question should actually be why is God believed to be a person rather than a thing? But before you go there, you should consider that you are accepting the existence of God as an axiom in your reasoning if you seek to honestly pursue such answers.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Answering Muslims: A New Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok. That's fair, but do realize that there are a number of atheists who crunch down on Christianity by subscribing and centering upon 'moral complaints' that more or less come from the minds of secular philosophers [every since Socrates/Plato & Epicurus?] who are not specifically drawing from the Bible their notions about how some god's superlative features provide them with countless logical critiques.

Not sure what you mean. Got an example?

On the other hand, I realize that we can pull out a book like that of The Impossibilty of God, edited by the illustrious atheists Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier, and just go to town on ourselves, especially if we happen to be Christian, beating ourselves over the head with it till we're black and blue, letting go of our once cherished faith but not really having gotten any closer to completely defeating the Christian bugaboo that I'm asserting is one of my reasons for belief.

Never heard of it.

Then we have your case here, Nick, in which you admit that "you go to the Bible" for your Jewishly defined understanding of what the Biblical writers seem to assert is the moral nature of the world in which we live. And so, I'm just wondering, what specifics regarding "good and bad" are you referring to in your reliance upon the Bible? Are there any that would, in your estimation, seem to play against my Reason #3?

It depends on the argument which specifics I'd cite. My point was that I don't have to rely on my own subjective opinion on what is bad and what is good, I'll agree with the Christian on what is bad and what is good. In general though, you could take your pick of sins and ask, "Why does God allow it if He hates it?". I'm not asking from a, "Why does God allow things I hate?" perspective, I'm accepting as a premise that the things God hates are bad without needing to look to myself for a subjective opinion on the topic.

Now when folks, including myself, bring up things the Bible overlooks like slavery, or rape, or genocide, you could look at it that way. I think it's safe to infer that those things are bad based on the whole "love your neighbor" principle though. Honestly, those arguments, while fun, are probably more of an appeal to emotion than anything else, like The Argument from Objective Morality. Those arguments just bring up hot button issues for people to be passionate about. It would be better to use something more benign, like... Oh, I dunno... Chocolate ice cream. That seems to make people more incensed than talking about genocide though...


I had to trace back through the thread to find Reason #3. I jumped in here out of nowhere, and I haven't been following the whole thread super-closely. I'm going to quote it here just for reference for me.

My Reason #3: Since at least the presence of some forms of Evil and Sin in the world SHOULD count as evidence for the Christian faith, then part of my belief set includes this as a factor ... I'm not sure how it couldn't. [And please note: I said I have "a belief set," not a belief system. This is an important point in and of itself.]

Here's but one example that this reason can take: The New Testament writers say that anti-christs, false teachers, and false prophets will arise after Jesus died and rose again.............so we answer the question:

Have we indeed seen these kinds of manifestations during the last nearly 2,000 years? Yes? If so, then this is evidence for us to interpret and consider. It isn't proof for God's existence all by itself, but it is a positive answer and serves as a signifier of the essence of what was told to us beforehand in and through the Church of Christ.
And within the realm of this reason #3, I'm sure there are other evils and sins existing in the world, even today, which we can cite and to which we can apply the same questioning. But atheists will try to paper this over with non-theological argumentation more fitting for questions applying to the generic 'god of the philosophers' rather than the God of the Bible, i.e. the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Meh... Didn't we see these manifestations for the thousands of years before the NT made the claim that we would see them for the next thousands of years? If there are other sins and evils that the NT "predicted" for us to apply the same sort of questioning, were they also rampant for thousands of years leading up to Jesus? It sounds a bit like predicting the Sun will rise tomorrow. I don't think it's noteworthy that they were right. In fact, it would be downright weird if they were wrong.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The term God is an axiom and is therefore self evident, subsequently I must say that God must exist if I am to correctly articulate the meaning.

To elaborate further, I know that the energy that created the universe came from somewhere and the term God is being used as an axiom pertaining to what, or in the personal form Who, that somewhere/someone is. Without God (source of energy) there is no universe = There is a universe therefore there is God (source of energy). This is accepted logic applicable in deductive reasoning and even proven in mathematical equations such as Einstein's E=mc2 theory of relativity.

Your question should actually be why is God believed to be a person rather than a thing? But before you go there, you should consider that you are accepting the existence of God as an axiom in your reasoning if you seek to honestly pursue such answers.

What you say you "know" and have "proved" about the "axiomatic" God is tenuous in the extreme. It seems to be some form of the Kalaam argument, wherein you think the universe cannot come into being without a creator of some kind. And no, throwing "E=mc2" in does not particularly help your case.
Third, I have no intention of accepting the existence of God in order to debate you. The existence of God is what you have to provide evidence for. Essentially, you're just saying, "if there's no God, how did we get here?" And the answer, of course, is, "I don't know, and you need to provide evidence if you think you do."

Perhaps it's best to leave it at that, then.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It's not an it; 'it' was a her, and she was a propagandist for the Japanese.

https://www.history.com/news/how-tokyo-rose-became-wwiis-most-notorious-propagandist

Maybe I should start calling you "Beijing Buttercup"?

Thank you. A fascinating story. I especially liked the end, in which she was exonerated, praised and pardoned by the President.
And no, to respond to your question; you may call me Interested Atheist, or IA.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

rebutted soundly by Lee Strobel and J Warner Wallace

I bet they weren't. Want to explain, in your own words, how that happened?

rebutted years ago
Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity

None of these actually help your case.
Let's see...
Thallus. Okay, so first of all, we have nothing Thallus wrote any more, only second hand quotes of his. Julius Africanus, writing a century and a half later -
Okay, we can stop right there. A century and a half later? That's a huge amount of time to be talking about.
So much for Thallus. If you wish, you can see Richard Carrier explain why he doesn't need to be taken seriously as evidence for Jesus' resurrection here.

Next, Tacitus. No use to you at all. All it shows is that Christians existed in the year 116 AD.

Next, Mara Bar-Serapion. Well, first of all, the writers just assume that the "Wise King" refers to Jesus. Second, even if it does, so what? There was a wise man called Jesus.

Phlegon? Apparently just another unknown history quoted by others, decades after the events concerned. As evidence goes, this is unreliable indeed.

Pliny the Younger? Well, his evidence shows that Christians existed.

Suetonius? The same.

I skimmed through the rest, and you can see what it means. Basically, the authors of the are desperately picking up anything which has the slightest reference to Christianity in ancient writings, and then making unjustified inferences based on it.

The most this proves is that a man called Jesus lived, and founded a religion. Whether or not he could actually work miracles, including coming back from the dead, they say nothing about.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

rebutted soundly by Lee Strobel and J Warner Wallace

I bet they weren't. Want to explain, in your own words, how that happened?

rebutted years ago
Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity

None of these actually help your case.
Let's see...
Thallus. Okay, so first of all, we have nothing Thallus wrote any more, only second hand quotes of his. Julius Africanus, writing a century and a half later -
Okay, we can stop right there. A century and a half later? That's a huge amount of time to be talking about.
So much for Thallus. If you wish, you can see Richard Carrier explain why he doesn't need to be taken seriously as evidence for Jesus' resurrection here.

Next, Tacitus. No use to you at all. All it shows is that Christians existed in the year 116 AD.

Next, Mara Bar-Serapion. Well, first of all, the writers just assume that the "Wise King" refers to Jesus. Second, even if it does, so what? There was a wise man called Jesus.

Phlegon? Apparently just another unknown history quoted by others, decades after the events concerned. As evidence goes, this is unreliable indeed.

Pliny the Younger? Well, his evidence shows that Christians existed.

Suetonius? The same.

I skimmed through the rest, and you can see what it means. Basically, the authors of the are desperately picking up anything which has the slightest reference to Christianity in ancient writings, and then making unjustified inferences based on it.

The most this proves is that a man called Jesus lived, and founded a religion. Whether or not he could actually work miracles, including coming back from the dead, they say nothing about.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Answering Muslims: A New Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

Erik, you seem to be under the impression that because something was written in the Bible, it happened. Furthermore, you seem to think that we can trust the Bible, because if Jesus hadn't really come back to life, people would have said so.
I'd like to share this article with you, which provides a rather different picture of how people lived and thought two thousand years ago.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels.

It's a brief, easy read, and very interesting. Its basic point is that this was a time in which people believed ridiculous claims extremely easily. There's a man who can do magic? No problem! A virgin birth? Of course, happens all the time. Someone died, and there was an earthquake, and he ascended into heaven? Why not, it's not the first we've seen!

Read this, and you'll see that there is nothing at all unusual about the idea that people simply made up stories about Jesus having come back to life and ascended into heaven, and that people believed this enthusiastically.

It happened all the time.

"From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you. A fascinating story. I especially liked the end, in which she was exonerated, praised and pardoned by the President.
And no, to respond to your question; you may call me Interested Atheist, or IA.

Alright. Interested Atheist ... "enjoy" the Communist comforts of your present residence.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Really, I do. It's a great life, the culture here is fascinating, and I love learning Chinese.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thallus. Okay, so first of all, we have nothing Thallus wrote any more, only second hand quotes of his. Julius Africanus, writing a century and a half later -
Okay, we can stop right there. A century and a half later? That's a huge amount of time to be talking about.

Not really much of a historical impediment. Do you know the sources for Julius Caesar's assassination? Literally just Suetonius and Plutarch. Caesar is a major historical figure! For his life, we can use Cicero's letters, a little Sallust, Cassius Dio and some fragmentary quotations of Livy - really not much, even for someone this major, that wrote his own extent books!

Many major events are claimed on far more flimsy ground. We reconstruct whole dynastic arrangements in Egyptology on literally quotations of Manetho - the originals being lost.

Thing is, the argument to discount Thallus hedges on there being either no eclipse then, or discounting that the timing was correct, or that he was misquoted. That the original is lost merely muddies the water, but does not mean the evidence can be ignored. Thallus did exist and was quoted, but was it relevant to Christian miracles or no?

In my opinion, the fact of no eclipse then is strong support for a miracle - even the Christians acknowledge an Eclipse impossible during Passover. No eclipse is noted for the operative period during Tiberius' reign, so if Thallus really had an 'Eclipse' then, then it had to have been something else entirely. Africanius was quoting pagan sources in rebuttal - meaning his opponents had access to it, and he was showing them from their own documents, that it had been recorded. Not having the original, we cannot see if he was misquoted or if the timing was correct, but we don't see this argument commonly made by Pagan opponents of Christianity in Roman times - so it probably wasn't a strong one.

So much for Thallus. If you wish, you can see Richard Carrier explain why he doesn't need to be taken seriously as evidence for Jesus' resurrection here.

Ha ha. Typical disingenous Carrier. He had a peer-reviewed article that was fairly limited and straightforward, then 'expanded' it on the internet with all kinds of unsubstantiated hogwash and speculation - and then continued to try and claim peer-review of the original! No wonder his Alma Mater has disavowed any further connection with him and why he is unaffiliated nowadays.

Next, Tacitus. No use to you at all. All it shows is that Christians existed in the year 116 AD.

Not true. Tacitus wrote his work based on Roman Annals - hence the name. He notes Jesus to have been put to death by Pilate, so is Roman support from Roman sources for the Crucifixion. Further, he uses the incorrect title of Procurator for Pilate which was the gubernatorial title for Judaea after it was re-absorbed after Herod Agrippa's kingdom, so was the title thereafter. Christians had his title as Prefect, which was in use from 6 AD to 41 AD and been archaeologically supported today, so Tacitus in all probability derived the report from Roman sources.

Next, Mara Bar-Serapion. Well, first of all, the writers just assume that the "Wise King" refers to Jesus. Second, even if it does, so what? There was a wise man called Jesus.

Agreed. A bit dubious evidence alone, but placed in broader context it increasesthe likelihood of the whole.

Phlegon? Apparently just another unknown history quoted by others, decades after the events concerned. As evidence goes, this is unreliable indeed.

Same as above. Origen's quote works well to support Thallus. Two independant Christian quotes of Pagan authors to Pagan opponents, making the claim that their own sources said this. In a context where these books were available, as these works clearly imply, they aren't neglible.

Pliny the Younger? Well, his evidence shows that Christians existed.

Correct. And that they claim Jesus was God and had been a man, and were willing to be persecuted and die for the belief - within a period and area in which people could have been witnesses if quite elderly, or met witnessess of events that fantastic claims are being made of.

Suetonius? The same.

Correct. Although it adds support for later Christian stories a bit, and shows a willingness to die again (or inability not to, so shows clear proselyting was going on). In conjunction with the Nazareth stone, its implications on the Empty Tomb are also staggering. Here is a thread on that: Claudius, the Jews, and the early Christians

I skimmed through the rest, and you can see what it means. Basically, the authors of the are desperately picking up anything which has the slightest reference to Christianity in ancient writings, and then making unjustified inferences based on it.

The most this proves is that a man called Jesus lived, and founded a religion. Whether or not he could actually work miracles, including coming back from the dead, they say nothing about.

We can conclusively say a man Jesus lived, and that He was killed, and His followers ascribed miracles and the Resurrection to Him. That much is clear, and the vast majority of historians concur on this (barring the discredited lunatic fringe of Christ Myth). Christians know the claim of a man being raised from the dead is fantastic, that is the whole point. It is a faith claim, at heart, as we know it usually doesn't happen - but in this one instance we think it did. You must decide in what framework to evaluate the historic sources - if you start out from a Humian renunciation of the miraculous, then all evidence thereof is simply ignored as impossible. If you go directly from the sources, in a contextual manner as understood in their manner of writing, the implication is different. Remember, miracles are common in ancient writings - Livia and her Laurel branch delivered by an Eagle say, or Appolonius of Tyana, or Marcus Aurelius' Quadi storm - but we don't completely discount other sources on account of them. History is creating a narrative, it is not the events themselves, but an artificial simulacrum of them created by the historians and trusted on faith and presumed probabilities.

Saying there is no historical evidence, merely begs the question what framework you are using to judge it by. Look at the wild special pleading and idiocy of Christ Myth or Hindu Nationalists or the Aryan Myth of the Nazis, to see how slippery historic evidence can be. Many sources are thin - we base whole centuries of history on 1 text on occasion, found in only 9 or so copies (Tacitus' Annals or Josephus, for instance). Think of things like the Kennedy Assassination or the Angel of Mons - perspective says a lot.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And here's another interesting article. I'll just focus on point 7.3, linked to in the contentsat the top of the article.

Was Christianity too improbable to be false?

The subject is the question of how reliable Luke's gospel is, and it makes the following points.
1. Of the four accepted gospels, Luke's is the only one that even claims to be a history. It is generally agreed upon, by Christians and non-Christians alike, that Luke's is the most reliable of the four.
2. Luke can be shown to be a very poor historian. His style of writing was to gather sources he had heard and copy them down, putting them in order, but engaging in very little - if any - historical analysis.
3. Carrier gives an interesting example of how a real historian works - naming his sources, showing the work he did in determining true or false claims, investigating. As he says:

"This is how a critical historian behaves. His methods and critical judgment become transparent and laid out for the reader to see. He names--or at least mentions or describes--his sources. In this particular case, Suetonius identifies Gaetulicus, Pliny the Elder, the Acta Publica, and the letters of Augustus, as well as an anonymous oral tradition and a public inscription at Ambitarvium, all in addition to "the historians of Augustus." He analyzes the conflicting claims and tells us how he decided on one over the other--indeed, it is already important that he tells us there were conflicting traditions. He lists the evidence and criticizes it. He gives us information about the reliability of his sources--for instance, he tells us when a source is anonymous, and admits that is a mark against it, and he tells us what evidence any given author appealed to, and remarks on their possible motives. He quotes documents or sources verbatim. And he is openly attentive to chronological inconsistencies.

Luke does none of these things. He never even mentions method, much less shows his methods to us, or any critical judgment at all. He never names even a single (relevant) source, nor does he give us anything like a useful description of any of his sources, and he certainly never tells us which sources he used for which details of his history. And Luke must surely have known there were conflicting claims, yet he never tells us about them, but instead just narrates his account as if everything were indisputable, never once telling us how or why he chose one version or detail and left out others."

And this, mark you, is the gospel that is generally considered to be the most reliable and best researched.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Please cite your work here ... if you want us to take you seriously. Marcionism was "the most popular" form of Christianity for a time? Ok. I'll bite: says who?

I said one of, if not the most popular. I never said it was a runaway favourite. At that time, there was no one major predominant christian narrative. What became the orthodox view was just one of dozens of very different brands of Christianity,. It just happened to win out in the end. It was certainly a major early sect however, and their numbers at the very least rivaled any other major sect at the time.

Most of my knowledge of the Marcionites comes from Bart Ehrman's book "Lost Christianities", however I've read up on them from other sources. It's a great read if you're interested.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

We can conclusively say a man Jesus lived, and that He was killed, and His followers ascribed miracles and the Resurrection to Him. That much is clear, and the vast majority of historians concur on this (barring the discredited lunatic fringe of Christ Myth). Christians know the claim of a man being raised from the dead is fantastic, that is the whole point. It is a faith claim, at heart, as we know it usually doesn't happen - but in this one instance we think it did.

Well, there we are then. A man named Jesus existed, he may have been crucified, and a religion grew up around him. And yes, to say that you think this man could actually do magic, really was the son of God, and did in fact rise from the dead is a faith claim, as you say.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I said one of, if not the most popular. I never said it was a runaway favourite. At that time, there was no one major predominant christian narrative. What became the orthodox view was just one of dozens of very different brands of Christianity,. It just happened to win out in the end. It was certainly a major early sect however, and their numbers at the very least rivaled any other major sect at the time.

...and what time, exactly, was that?

Most of my knowledge of the Marcionites comes from Bart Ehrman's book "Lost Christianities", however I've read up on them from other sources. It's a great read if you're interested.

Ok. Thank you for your clarification. This is helpful since none of us really wants to mislead others by how we might articulate our arguments, and we wouldn't want people to get the impression that Marcionism was in some way "the most popular" form of Christianity at some time during the centuries in which it had a following.

I'm familiar with Ehrman already, but thanks for the reference.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'll admit that I was wrong when I see the citation @Dave Ellis gives for his reference.

In the meantime, I'll just sit here, ruminating over just how much of a goober Marcion must have really been. I mean, the dude must have needed his head checked for how he *bastardized* the Bible. However, I do appreciate Marcion's presence in history because he seems to nicely fit into my reason #3 type example I gave up above a few posts back. ... he really was a goober.

Explain how he bastardized the bible, when the bible wasn't a thing at that point?

There were dozens of gospels floating around, each sect had their own. There was no canon at that time in history.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

And here's another interesting article. I'll just focus on point 7.3, linked to in the contentsat the top of the article.

Was Christianity too improbable to be false?

The subject is the question of how reliable Luke's gospel is, and it makes the following points.
1. Of the four accepted gospels, Luke's is the only one that even claims to be a history. It is generally agreed upon, by Christians and non-Christians alike, that Luke's is the most reliable of the four.
2. Luke can be shown to be a very poor historian. His style of writing was to gather sources he had heard and copy them down, putting them in order, but engaging in very little - if any - historical analysis.
3. Carrier gives an interesting example of how a real historian works - naming his sources, showing the work he did in determining true or false claims, investigating. As he says:

"This is how a critical historian behaves. His methods and critical judgment become transparent and laid out for the reader to see. He names--or at least mentions or describes--his sources. In this particular case, Suetonius identifies Gaetulicus, Pliny the Elder, the Acta Publica, and the letters of Augustus, as well as an anonymous oral tradition and a public inscription at Ambitarvium, all in addition to "the historians of Augustus." He analyzes the conflicting claims and tells us how he decided on one over the other--indeed, it is already important that he tells us there were conflicting traditions. He lists the evidence and criticizes it. He gives us information about the reliability of his sources--for instance, he tells us when a source is anonymous, and admits that is a mark against it, and he tells us what evidence any given author appealed to, and remarks on their possible motives. He quotes documents or sources verbatim. And he is openly attentive to chronological inconsistencies.

Luke does none of these things. He never even mentions method, much less shows his methods to us, or any critical judgment at all. He never names even a single (relevant) source, nor does he give us anything like a useful description of any of his sources, and he certainly never tells us which sources he used for which details of his history. And Luke must surely have known there were conflicting claims, yet he never tells us about them, but instead just narrates his account as if everything were indisputable, never once telling us how or why he chose one version or detail and left out others."

And this, mark you, is the gospel that is generally considered to be the most reliable and best researched.

Suetonius? He was a shock writer. A lot of what he says has no archaeologic or support in other writers. On biographies like that of Juvenal or Terence, he has been shown to be highly inventive. Even strong supporters of Suetonius as Historian admit that he must be used as an ancillary, rather than sole, source. I have attached such an article.

If that is Carrier's idea of a 'good historian', no wonder he has such whackadoo ideas. I am sure he thinks Procopius' secret histories to be accurate, or that Catherine II slept with horses. This is the equivalent of Roman Tabloids.

Good Roman historians are Tacitus or Arrian. Luke follows fairly close the normal practice of Hellenistic histories, and in context as writing for a small nascent church, in which such witnesses are likely prominent, there is no reason to think him deficient. A lot of his minor details, like titulature of local officials or Roman governors, has been confirmed archaeologically to boot. This is an exceedingly weak anti-Lukan argument if I ever heard one.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The hallmark of design is simplicity, not complexity. A good engineer will streamline a design as much as possible. A Rube Goldberg device is an example of a needlessly complex design, and it's not hard to see why that's poor engineering. Our universe is ridiculously massive compared to the space we could ever plausibly occupy, and everything except our tiny speck of a planet is extremely lethal to us, and even much of our own planet is not supportive of human life. To say this is designed with us in mind is the ultimate Rube Goldberg device.

Also, the odds that life and physics exist as they do have just as much chance as any other possible alternative. Your argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and probability.

The fact your life improved is great, however it also provides no evidence as well... I'm an Atheist, and my life is also better than it was 10 years ago. Don't get me wrong, 10 years ago I was still doing pretty well for someone in their mid 20s, but I was still getting established in life as an adult. Now i'm in my mid 30s, and things have progressed very well over the last decade.

Some Christians have a great life, and some have terrible lives. Same goes for Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, or any other religious demographic. The fact your life improved has no bearing on the truth value of the religion you follow.

You can see it however you want to but I will give all glory to God for what He has done in my life. I don’t expect you to be able to see all that He has blessed me with that I was incapable of accomplishing on my own for 30 years. After I came to Christ these things happened in 2 years. I won’t go into detail because it won’t make any difference. He who seeks will find and to him who knocks the door will be opened. Anyone who doesn’t want to find Him won’t. At least not until they’re ready to give Him a try. I hope you find God one day before it’s too late.