Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

The first mention of jesus was 20 - 30 years after his death by people such as Josephus and they weren't even born by the time jesus was meant to have died. If you think decades after his death is still the time of jesus then my point should correct you. I thought you said that there was plenty of evidence for his existence but now you put forth "evidence" (i'm using that term loosely) that was written long after his death. Even jesus' supposed enemies never wrote about him and they would have a lot to gain by writing evil things about him. But there's no good or bad stories about him during his time.

The reason people grow up believing these myths is not because of any truth, but because that myth is reinforced over their lives (from birth onwards). Which is why, for a generalized example, people in the west tend to be christian and people in the east tend to be muslims. Because those stories are reinforced. Children believe in santa but then we stop reinforcing those beliefs and they grow out of it. But the jesus myth is allowed to continue.

If there ever existed a man who could snap his fingers like the Fonz and cure diseases, walk on water and all that stuff then there would be lots of documents to that fact at that period. Imagine how many records would exist if someone like that existed. People would write down such events, they would draw the events, create statues, i'm sure. Considering we know useless facts from that time like the custom of salutation comes from Roman tradition i'm sure there would've been some mention of some guy named jesus.

The Romans did keep good records. In their governmental records they kept censuses of their population and jesus isn't mentioned once. Here's a quote in relation to the written record of jesus from our contemporary researchers:

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

There is sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the bible about jesus (amongst) were copied from other stories that already existed in that time.

There'll probably be people in 2000 years time worshipping at the First Church of Harry Potter claiming that he too was a real person as he's mentioned in "historical" documents and he did all these wonderful things.

Again, all of this is written within 200 years of his life and is still considered valid by historians. The reason very few historians believe in the 'Christ myth theory' is because it's almost certain it isn't true.

It isn't about how long after his death that were written by rather the fact they were even written.

There isn't really any sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the Bible were copied. You can claim such but it can easily be refuted.

Thallus the historian was born before Jesus and is so ancient that a lot of his writings have been lost.

His 52 AD writing describes the darkness that occurred when Jesus died but as Thallus is a pagan and is very hostile towards Jesus - he dismisses it as an eclipse (which wasn't possible at that specific time).

You claim there would be loads of documents and there is - the Bible.

There are hostile writings about Jesus and I don't know if you read what I put in the spoiler which literally refutes what you've said here and in the post before.

It doesn't matter that this was written within 200 years of his life, the accounts of jesus written afterwards can't be considered well, as they provide no means of corroboration. The only people who put forth these accounts as being accurate and / or complete are christians.

These people appear to have written down stories they have been told, nothing more. There are people today that claim they saw jesus here and there and blog about such things. Just because they wrote it down offers nothing in the way of credibility. Likewise, those that wrote about jesus after the fact offer nothing credible.

The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there.

What Thallus said is up for debate. His view stems from the works of 9th century monks who compiled passages and attributed them to Thallus. So we cannot claim any kind of accuracy in regards to what Thallus said. So this can't be directly attributed to Thallus, we have the word of a religious figure (who makes a claim that Thallus said this but doesn't provide anything corroborative) that this is so.

Some of these monks have a reputation of destroying /amending evidence. For example, it was found that a monk had destroyed evidence of calculus from over 2000 years ago, more than a thousand years before Newton came up with it.

Even if Thallus wrote lots of works that were destroyed, the default position is to not believe anyone who claims to know what Thallus may have written about without evidence.

I read your spoiler and there is nothing hostile about jesus, just arguments that anticipate counter-arguments.

The bible isn't proof of jesus any more than 'The Iliad' is proof that the cyclops and Odysseus existed.

It doesn't matter that this was written within 200 years of his life, the accounts of jesus written afterwards can't be considered well, as they provide no means of corroboration. The only people who put forth these accounts as being accurate and / or complete are christians.

These people appear to have written down stories they have been told, nothing more. There are people today that claim they saw jesus here and there and blog about such things. Just because they wrote it down offers nothing in the way of credibility. Likewise, those that wrote about jesus after the fact offer nothing credible.

The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there.

What Thallus said is up for debate. His view stems from the works of 9th century monks who compiled passages and attributed them to Thallus. So we cannot claim any kind of accuracy in regards to what Thallus said. So this can't be directly attributed to Thallus, we have the word of a religious figure (who makes a claim that Thallus said this but doesn't provide anything corroborative) that this is so.

Some of these monks have a reputation of destroying /amending evidence. For example, it was found that a monk had destroyed evidence of calculus from over 2000 years ago, more than a thousand years before Newton came up with it.

Even if Thallus wrote lots of works that were destroyed, the default position is to not believe anyone who claims to know what Thallus may have written about without evidence.

I read your spoiler and there is nothing hostile about jesus, just arguments that anticipate counter-arguments.

The bible isn't proof of jesus any more than 'The Iliad' is proof that the cyclops and Odysseus existed.

The majority of historians agree with those accounts so I don't know what you're talking about.

How do they seem to have written down stories they have been told? No evidence? Okay.

The gospels are corroborating evidence for each other.

'People that write about an event after it happened offer nothing credible'

If several people write about someone - because they wrote about it after he died - it means he doesn't exist? Your logic is really bad and I'm sure you didn't study History.

'The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there. '

There is nothing about Jesus being born on the 25th of December in the Bible. The virgin birth isn't copied from anywhere and 'healing'. So because there are stories of other people healing others - the Bible copied them? seems legit.

No, the source I used was simply a man quoting Thallus not quoting some 9th century compiled sources. Whether or not Thallus said that, he is not the only one who held a hostile view confirming Jesus' existence. Almost all historians believe Jesus was baptised and crucified.

The spoiler was a counter to your argument not 'an anticipation of counter-arguments'.

The Iliad is a poem so why would it be setting out to prove the characters inside it exist? The Bible is a book detailing historical events and figures. I really think you need to know the difference here. The Bible counts as evidence for the existence of Jesus which is exactly why historians take it as such. The Bible is not the only source for proof of Jesus' existence,

I agree that we should both go back to condensed points.

The non-Christian Roman sources from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny were written in the same century as Jesus' life. Their writings and the Gospels are taken as historical evidence of his existence being written within 200 years of his life.

Again, all of this is written within 200 years of his life and is still considered valid by historians. The reason very few historians believe in the 'Christ myth theory' is because it's almost certain it isn't true.

It isn't about how long after his death that were written by rather the fact they were even written.

There isn't really any sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the Bible were copied. You can claim such but it can easily be refuted.

Thallus the historian was born before Jesus and is so ancient that a lot of his writings have been lost.

His 52 AD writing describes the darkness that occurred when Jesus died but as Thallus is a pagan and is very hostile towards Jesus - he dismisses it as an eclipse (which wasn't possible at that specific time).

You claim there would be loads of documents and there is - the Bible.

There are hostile writings about Jesus and I don't know if you read what I put in the spoiler which literally refutes what you've said here and in the post before.

Any human being, be it the historian himself or those believing him, claiming to call something a good source that was written 200 years after the fact with absolutely no contemporary evidence, is a lunatic. And I mean that.

The majority of historians don't agree with those accounts. That's why you don't know what i'm talking about.

They appear to have written down stories they were told as they don't mention any kind of historical investigation and they fail to provide anything which would back up their claims (no names of people who could be verified as being there - probably because there was no-one to witness a non-existent event). So, okay.

The gospels are no more evidence for corroboration than Harry Potter and Hermione are to the existence of Voldemort.

Nope, my logic is sound. The people who wrote about a supposed event offer nothing in the way of evidence. In the early 20th century, tens of thousands of people in a village in mexico claim to have seen the sun whiz all over the sky, yet there is no evidence for their claim. Just because a lot of people say something doesn't make it true. Only evidence does.

You get preachers in ministries all over the world claiming to heal the sick and do all sorts of miraculous things through the power of god, but none of it is ever verified. So the people writing down events they appear not to have investigated without providing anything verifiable can't be considered as anything other than a story. Your reasoning skills are very bad.

There is the story of Horus (long before the tale of jesus) who spawned from a virgin birth; only son of god; mother's name was Meri; foster father called Jo-seph; his birth was heralded by a star and announced by angels; birth witnessed by shephards; visited by three deities; and a lot more similarities. So, the authors of the bible clearly thought: wow, good story lets just just replace the name Horus with jesus.

No, you quoted a 9th century monk claiming to quote Thallus and who then conveniently destroyed or lost the original text. The majority of historians don't agree on the birth of jesus as there is no evidence for this and their careers are based on evidence, not feelings and faith.

The spoiler didn't counter anything, it was used in a failed anticipation of potential counter points.

The Iliad is a fantastic work of fiction which details historical events. The bible is also a fantastic work of fiction. The only difference is that we don't teach the Iliad as being true. It has it's place it education in the literature segment, just where the bible belongs. If people started saying, "The Iliad is true. Agamemnon and Achilles confirm what Odysseus said", then we'd probably still be worshipping Zeus, Poseidon and the rest. You should really look into this some more.

If the bible counts as evidence for jesus (for which no credible historian accepts) then the Iliad counts as evidence for the existence of Odysseus. You don't need truth in christianity, you just need people to claim it's true... just like how the scientology got a foot hold in the money making business of religion.

They weren't written 200 years after. In fact the gospels were written within 40 years of his life but all historians take evidence written with 200 years of a historical figure.

My belief is that everything around us, everything that penetrates us and surrounds us, is part of one whole being. There is a light side and the dark, and there is a middle. In the end, we all end up as part of this one cosmic force, this one huge grouping. I may sound like a Jedi, but it makes sense.

The gospels are well evidenced.

Miracles in Lourdes are verified by atheist doctors smh.

LOL Horus has a father called Meri? Please stop. Horus is an egyptian god and the son of Isis and Osiris. There was nothing about a virgin birth. No angels or stars heralded Horus and no shepherds came to visit him. There is also no records of three kings visiting Horus. The Bible never mentions the amount of Magi that visited Jesus anyway.

You clearly didn't research this if you're going to spout all this utter rubbish and actually think it's true? I'm pretty sure even primary school children know Horus's mother was Isis and his father Osiris.

The majority of historians agree Jesus existed - what are you talking about? It is the very few that think he was a complete myth and never existed at all.

Even some people that say it is all a myth agree that Jesus existed but was a normal Jewish man who wasn't a rabbi at all.

You are holding extremist views and claiming them to be the majority.

If you want to pretend to yourself that no-one in the whole Bible existed then you really must never take History, please.

Credible historians take the Bible as evidence due to the fact it is well evidenced and corroborated.

The gospels are well evidenced.

Miracles in Lourdes are verified by atheist doctors smh.

LOL Horus has a father called Meri? Please stop.

LOL Horus has a father called Meri? Please stop. Horus is an egyptian god and the son of Isis and Osiris. There was nothing about a virgin birth. No angels or stars heralded Horus and no shepherds came to visit him. There is also no records of three kings visiting Horus. The Bible never mentions the amount of Magi that visited Jesus anyway.

The majority of historians agree Jesus existed - what are you talking about? It is the very few that think he was a complete myth and never existed at all.

Even some people that say it is all a myth agree that Jesus existed but was a normal Jewish man who wasn't a rabbi at all.

You are holding extremist views and claiming them to be the majority.

If you want to pretend to yourself that no-one in the whole Bible existed then you really must never take History, please.

Credible historians take the Bible as evidence due to the fact it is well evidenced and corroborated.

The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.

The gospels aren't well evidenced at all. There's only people reiterating what they've heard. That's not well evidenced.



Nope. Atheist doctors don't verify claims of miracles. The absence of an explanation does not mean that therefore god must be the answer.



What on earth are you talking about? You're obviously confusing threads as I said his mother's name was Meri. I asked this before but got no answer so i'll ask again: Is english your first language? If it is then you have no excuse. I was very clear in what I said and you even quoted it. If english is not your first language then I won't dwell on this as it can be forgiven.



That moment when josh suffers a fail so epic in its epicness, it is epicified in its epicicity.

Just for those readers who don't know, josh went and scurried to the egyptology thread, posted my post and desperately tried to find someone who would back him up and help him fight his corner. What he found instead was someone telling him to wise up, as there is in fact evidence to support my claim.
LOL
# When two hands aren't enough to facepalm with.

If you guys want to see his epic failure, ask him to post a link.

You probably should've posted in the egyptology thread first before responding to my post.

You see josh, what you should do is look at the evidence and make a claim based on the evidence (like I do), instead of making a claim then trying to find evidence to support the claim. Critical thinking would've helped you there. Whoops, there's that term again, criticlal thinking. You should use it once in a while.

There's evidence (as inadvertently verified in another thread) supporting my claims about Horus i.e his MOTHER's name is Meri, virgin birth etc. You see, I read around this subject years ago, as I had this same debate back then and there's an excellent book called 'The Pagan Christ'. You should check it out. But that would mean that you would have to read something other than the bible...oh no.



The majority of historians don't agree on the existence of jesus any more than agree on the existence of Zeus or some other fictional character.



So? Some people claim that Elvis never died. He just went back to his home planet. I'm not going to pay them any heed either.



I don't hold extremist views. I've said it before and i'll say it again. The Christ claim has not met its burden of proof and until sufficient evidence is brought forth, the correct and default position to take is not to believe it until so.

And I've never claimed nobody in the bible existed. This discussion has been about Christ. If you want to try and trick the readers into thinking I was referring to the whole bible then that's dishonest of you.

Harry Potter has factual information in it. Like the fact that Kings Cross station exists. Does that mean that the rest of the book is true? Of course not. It has some factual information in it but it doesn't give any credence to the rest of the book.

Likewise, the bible has some things true in it that can be verified by evidence. It doesn't mean we that we then take the entire bible to be true. You haven't asked me about other claims in the bible and so you can't put forth that I refute the other stories.



No, they don't as detailed above.

You sound like a pantheist.

Given the short lifespan back then, even 30 years would mean it was written by people who didn't actually witness anything.

The gospels aren't well evidenced at all. There's only people reiterating what they've heard. That's not well evidenced.

Nope. Atheist doctors don't verify claims of miracles. The absence of an explanation does not mean that therefore god must be the answer.

What on earth are you talking about? You're obviously confusing threads as I said his mother's name was Meri. I asked this before but got no answer so i'll ask again: Is english your first language? If it is then you have no excuse. I was very clear in what I said and you even quoted it. If english is not your first language then I won't dwell on this as it can be forgiven.


That moment when josh suffers a fail so epic in its epicness, it is epicified in its epicicity.

Just for those readers who don't know, josh went and scurried to the egyptology thread, posted my post and desperately tried to find someone who would back him up and help him fight his corner. What he found instead was someone telling him to wise up, as there is in fact evidence to support my claim.
LOL
# When two hands aren't enough to facepalm with.

If you guys want to see his epic failure, ask him to post a link.

You probably should've posted in the egyptology thread first before responding to my post.

You see josh, what you should do is look at the evidence and make a claim based on the evidence (like I do), instead of making a claim then trying to find evidence to support the claim. Critical thinking would've helped you there. Whoops, there's that term again, criticlal thinking. You should use it once in a while.

There's evidence (as inadvertently verified in another thread) supporting my claims about Horus i.e his MOTHER's name is Meri, virgin birth etc. You see, I read around this subject years ago, as I had this same debate back then and there's an excellent book called 'The Pagan Christ'. You should check it out. But that would mean that you would have to read something other than the bible...oh no.



The majority of historians don't agree on the existence of jesus any more than agree on the existence of Zeus or some other fictional character.



So? Some people claim that Elvis never died. He just went back to his home planet. I'm not going to pay them any heed either.



I don't hold extremist views. I've said it before and i'll say it again. The Christ claim has not met its burden of proof and until sufficient evidence is brought forth, the correct and default position to take is not to believe it until so.

And I've never claimed nobody in the bible existed. This discussion has been about Christ. If you want to try and trick the readers into thinking I was referring to the whole bible then that's dishonest of you.

Harry Potter has factual information in it. Like the fact that Kings Cross station exists. Does that mean that the rest of the book is true? Of course not. It has some factual information in it but it doesn't give any credence to the rest of the book.

Likewise, the bible has some things true in it that can be verified by evidence. It doesn't mean we that we then take the entire bible to be true. You haven't asked me about other claims in the bible and so you can't put forth that I refute the other stories.



No, they don't as detailed above.