Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Old man shouts
Your previous post was really long and I have not had the time to digest it and write a response.
Why do you say Simon Gathercole is "fanatical chrisitan"? He is a professor at Cambridge.
I think I have asked you this before but maybe this is a better way of asking the question.
If they find a hitherto unknown writing of Philo that mentions Jesus.
Then the discover a letter Pilate wrote to Rome explaining that he had to crucify Jesus because the Jews forced him.
Would you then become a Christian? I suspect it would make no difference.
If that is the case, than why should it make any difference to me that we don't have something like that?
@ Jo
Then I would, of course accept the existence of an historical Jesus. That is what we call "primary source".
That of course would NOT mean that the magical Jesus as described some 50 years later in the gospels existed.
Like most theists you fail to understand history and evidence. You conflate the magical, divine jesus with an ordinary human figure which may or may not have existed and been sentenced by Pilate. Who was so insignificant, that he escaped one mention during and for 30 years after his alleged lifetime.
When he was mentioned (by someone who had no first hand knowledge), that scribe patently failed to mention virgin births, resurrections and miracles....
That is the issue you never want to face Jo. There is no mention, not one, by ANYONE, of a magical sonofgod jesus until more than 50 years after the alleged events....
Are you beginning to understand your dilemma?
That is the issue Jo.
@ Old man shouts
Yes, I do understand the dilemma.
I agree with the facts you presented, just not the conclusions.
Why do I find so many references that reach the opposite conclusion you have?
I have mentioned a few before but here is another.
"What they really want to know is: Is there extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus existence."
"As a final observation: In New Testament scholarship generally, a number of specialists consider the question of whether Jesus existed to have been finally and conclusively settled in the affirmative. A few vocal scholars, however, still deny that he ever lived."
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/j...
One more.
"One of the more common arguments among online supporters of the Jesus Myth thesis is an argument from silence: “There are no contemporary references to Jesus, therefore he did not exist”. Unfortunately this naïve argument is based on an ignorance of the nature of ancient source material and of how an argument from silence is sustained. As a result, while it may initially seem to have some rhetorical force, it is not an argument that would be accepted by historians…."
https://historyforatheists.com/category/historical-jesus/
@ Jo
Please do stop posting links to christian apologist sites.
I can post a myriad of links from Jesus Mythers, Islamic sites explaining a human prophet jesus, etc and dozens of others all pushing an agenda and contradicting your obvious confirmation bias.
I stick to FACTS.
There is no contemporary evidence at all for the existence of your jesus figure. An historical approach from you would soon help you realise that.
The probability of a HUMAN 'jesus' figure along the lines of the other dozen or so Messiahs that roamed the middle east in the 1st century is real. But NOT PROVEN, they all have mentions...your god of choice has not.
Read what I wrote Jo...there is no evidence for a human Jesus at all except through hagiographic probability The verdict must be "NOT PROVEN".
There is even less probability( and NO EVIDENCE AT ALL) for a divine Jesus, that is your dilemma.
You persist in your chosen belief even when it has been demonstrated there is no good reason for you to do so. The evidence is just not there.
That is not living in truth Jo, that is delusional.
@ Old man shouts
Sorry for my delay in posting a reply.
In one of your previous replies you said that I should consider the source or the bias of the writer.
If the historian is a Christian, consider that he might be biased, was a point you made (summarizing).
I agree but also must use the same line of reasoning if the historian or theologian is an Atheist or Agnostic.
Do you agree?
If my example of Pilate writing about Jesus also included other mentions of events in the Bible.
If Pilate included interviews with the Centurion and the guards at the tomb that matched with the Bible narrative.
Would you fall on your knees in repentance and serve Jesus the rest of your days? I doubt it.
But you seem to think I should have the opposite reaction to there not being that kind of historical evidence.
Should we base our faith, or lack thereof, solely on what historians can presently tell us about the events in the Bible?
Can history answer the God question?
I wish I had half the knowledge you do on the history of Christianity.
The main reason I have not spent a lot of time studying it is becasue it does not seem to be that relevant.
What Augustine or Luther did is very important in a historical sense, but not in helping understand the Bible.
It helps in understanding Christianity but not in understanding Christ.
If the Bible was complied 200 years after its writing and 100 years after the oldest extant manuscript, that is good to know.
But it does not conclusively tell me a lot about the Bible itself. Unless you want to say that is when it originated, but I don't think that is in keeping with any objective scholarship.
@Jo Re: "If my example of Pilate writing about Jesus also included other mentions of events in the Bible.
If Pilate included interviews with the Centurion and the guards at the tomb that matched with the Bible narrative.
Would you fall on your knees in repentance and serve Jesus the rest of your days?"
(Howdy, Jo. I know you were directing this primarily to Old Man, but I simply could not resist responding to this particular statement. Pretty much all that follows are things I have already expressed here over the past several months. Still, I suppose they are worth repeating.)...
Just for shits and giggles, let's say it was somehow proven without any doubt that Jesus, and God, and all that is in the bible were actually true. Why do you think I or anybody else should suddenly fall upon our knees and start worshiping Jesus and the God of the bible? Better yet, why would we even WANT TO do so? Personally (as I have said many times before), I am not in the business of worshiping anything at all. The only thing I come even remotely close to "worshiping" is my wife. And even that is not worship. It is more of a very strong sense of mutual respect and a very powerful love. Matter of fact, it is pretty much guaranteed that if I were to ever start trying to worship her in the true sense of the word, she would lose all respect for me and likely move on to somebody stronger willed. And I would not blame her one bit for doing so. Therefore, there is no way I would have any desire to worship the god as depicted in the bible. Because at least I love my wife and have a great amount of respect for her. Whereas with the god of the bible, I have zero respect for it, regardless of how powerful it may be, so worshiping it would be out of the question.
Something to keep in mind on a bit of a side note. Notice I made it a point to specify the "God of the bible." (The "main character God", not all the other "honorable mention" gods.) That was on purpose, because there are a few other gods out there who have been around centuries before your god of the bible was ever imagined by Man. And based on what I know about a few of these other gods, there are actually some of them whom I admire, and I would actually have a good amount of respect for them if they were proven to be real. Granted, I still would not worship any of them, but I somehow get the feeling most of them would actually respect me for that in return.
@ Jo
Humans by default are biased. That is our nature. However when it comes to history and historical peer review those obviously biased (like theologians) are quickly unmasked and their findings discredited or interpreted in an unbiased manner by subsequent multiple reviews. That is the way it works Jo.
Most theologians work for the presupposition that Jesus existed, that the gospels are mainly to be relied upon. That is a false science. Fake news. Especially when we look at their denominations...and surprise,their findings bear their particular supposition out....
Modern Historians even amateur ones like myself rely on multiple sciences and sources of material. Archeology, Textual analysis, Hagiography, Social History, the list goes on. All those threads pull together to give us an understanding of the times, the figures that were around, the writings and religions that affected day to day lives. It is not faith or bias that gives us that, it is the letters from the legionnaire home complaining about the food, the natives, the letters from the governor to Rome excusing riots or asking for clarifications about taxing particular cults. It is the wine jars, the olive oil containers, the shards of mosaics, whole temples buried for 1500 years and now being unearthed again. It is the writing s of the playwrights, poets and philosophers that tell us how complex or simple the society was, I could go on but I know it falls on closed ears and mind in your case.
I give you once again as you obviously have difficulty understanding:
This is the Historical Method : “Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
Who is telling us this?
How do I know if I can trust them?
Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
How do I know if this document is genuine?
Bias is not part of historical research.
If there was that kind of evidence for the stories then we would have to apply the above criteria, then ask...Is there an alternative, rational explanation for those events? Research would be fascinating ...did the body get stolen? Was Jesus actually dead?
You see that is what history not blind faith does...it makes us look for truth.
If there was actual evidence for a resurrection, then that would certainly make me rethink my stance on Christianity, as any rational being would do.
No, no more than anyone would be advised to base their life on the events described in the bible texts that are at best fanciful and unevidenced.
The early history of christianity not important? Really?
Let's say we discover authenticated texts dating from 29 - 33CE that describe and are witnessed by actual identifiable people of a scruffy, itinerant preacher, son of a wealthy wood merchant, the preacher was called Yeshua bin Josef that was eventually executed for persistent rants against the establishment. It identifies the people who stole his body and hid his wife and children from the death squads.
Would you give up your faith?
How about we find the original authenticated 'Mark' with annotations in his own hand that describes the contents as a wild story he wrote for shits and giggles?
Would you give up your faith?
That is how important the early history of christianity, its origins, are to me and most rational humans. We already know much more about the early sects, their beliefs, their rites, their lives from the study of history and much does not jibe well with your version of christianity Jo.
You didn't know, and you do not want to find out? Actually the origins of the biblical texts are pretty much well known and they do not date to around 30CE. They are much later. That is where your ignorance takes you Jo...to a dead end of your own making.
And that Jo, is the conclusion of 'objective' scholarship...the earliest fragment we have of any gospels dated at the earliest to 125CE, (P52) the earliest fragment of "mark" to 160CE although we do know that the gospels existed in some form before then...we have the evidence from multiple sources, we also know that several early christian sects used texts that were markedly different in content to those you bury your head and your curiosity within.
Your whole tone seems to be "it is what I believe so facts do not matter"
So why should anyone take you seriously? You no more seek truth than a mole.
@ Old man shouts
Here is a quote from someone who I suspect you agree with that contradicts what you are essentially saying.
"The proposition that Jesus was crucified may be true by historical validation, inasmuch as a man whom we refer to as Jesus of Nazareth probably existed ...—even those who are atheists or agnostics.. —assent to this fact." Edited quote from Michael Shermer
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-would-it-take-to-prove-t...
Do you agree with his above statement.
Here is a quote from a renowned historical source that is not a theist publication.
This shows why there is no evidence of Jesus as you think there should be.
"The ultimate find—physical proof of Jesus himself—has also been elusory. The sorts of evidence other historical figures leave behind are not the sort we’d expect with Jesus....He wasn’t a political leader, so we don’t have coins, for example, that have his bust or name. He wasn’t a sufficiently high-profile social leader to leave behind inscriptions. In his own lifetime, he was a marginal figure and he was active in marginalized circles.”https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/
Every time I check your claim that "the events described in the bible texts that are at best fanciful and unevidenced", I find authoritative sources, even those who are atheist or agnostic, who disagree with your conclusions.
You seem to take an extreme position on the subject.
I do not, nor do they, in general disagree with any facts you have presented, but in your conclusions.
I am not saying they are confirming that everything in the Bible is historically proven.
There is a recording of a debate between Lennox (Christian) and Atkins (Atheist) that is applicable to this discussion.
It is a lengthy and typical debate, but at the end the moderator asks a very relevant question.
Lennox says he checked with all the ancient historians at Oxford and even the Atheist agree on a historical Jesus.
Atkins also gives at 1:18 an 80% chance that Jesus existence is historically sound.
He asked both men what it would take for them to switch there position to the others.
Atkins said there is nothing, Lennox said that if Jesus did not exist and there was no resurrection.
One gave clear and precise facts that could be presented to make him change his position.
The other knows nothing that could change his mind. A profound difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSYwCaFkYno
When I gave you hypothetical historical verification of Biblical events your reply was,
"Is there an alternative, rational explanation for those events? Research would be fascinating ...did the body get stolen? Was Jesus actually dead?"
Even with evidence, you don't change your belief.
Yet you expect me to change mine with much less evidence, even though it would be contrary to the general consensus from the experts.
Do you apply the same standard to why Philo did mention Jesus - "Is there an alternative, rational explanation."
Maybe the writings that would have mentioned Jesus are missing? Maybe he had reasons for not mentioning him?
You seem to only be skeptical to one side of the argument.
The facts matter. The facts that are not mentioned also matter.
The conclusions drawn from the facts are where I disagree.
And where I think you are not in agreement with scholarship.
@Jo
Who are the best source of biblical material, who have searched for and possess most documents, who have the best access? The Jews. They hold most of the documents, they are very active in learning anything and everything in their history.
Yet, with all the information they have, they are no swayed by the Jesus story and do not consider him the type of person christians do.
You seem to believe that the bible is not that important. But if you did not have the bible, where would you stand personally without it? That sole book makes all the claims you adhere to. Do not casually dismiss the very cornerstone of your faith.
@ David Killens
"You seem to believe that the bible is not that important."
I don't know what I said to give you that impression but I basically beleive the opposite.
I think the Jews expected God to come as a conquering David.
Not as the suffering savior of Isaiah 53.
Even though"in the volume of the book it is written of me."Heb 10
@ Jo
Once again you seek to misrepresent my position. I have said, and I repeat There is no contemporary evidence for the Jesus figure as described in the gospels
I have also said that the existence of a fanciful magical jesus as described in the gospels is improbable,
I have also maintained that the existence of a human Yeshua Bin Josef is "Not Proven"
Should you bother to look up that verdict (it is in Scottish Law) you will find the following: Both in the "solemn" and the "summary" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction. One reason for this is the rule that in such cases the evidence for the prosecution must be corroborated in order to permit a conviction. Thus, there might be a single plaintiff or witness for the prosecution, which the jury or judge believes is both truthful and trustworthy, but no other witness or circumstances against the accused. By Scottish law, the accused then should be acquitted, but often will be so by the verdict "not proven".
Do try and comprehend why I use that verdict for the existence or not, of a human Jesus and against the probability of a magical jesus as described in the gospels.
So why you are trawling through websites trying to find quotes that end up confirming my position just shows a major lack of reading comprehension on your part.
Of course I agree with his statement, read the paragraph again and try to apply some comprehension to it. Then read his article in total and understand what he was saying. If you need help please ask.
It does NOT contradict my position at all, but certainly undermines yours.
Again you farm a quote that entirely supports my position as stated in the first paragraph and does nothing to support your wild assertions.
Your debate paragraph is utterly meaningless. I have no idea why you brought that up at all. I have explained at length and many times to you and other magiucal theists supporters that
1. There is no evidence for a resurrection (or crucifixion for that matter, but a crucifixion of a minor troublemaker was commonplace)
2. There are NO contemporary reports, not one, of any 'darkening at noon', 'hundreds of Jewish Zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem' or any of the other magicul fancies surrounding that alleged event. NONE.
And here we have the crux of your delusion. I have stated my opinion clearly and will do so again:
There is no contemporary evidence for the Jesus figure as described in the gospels
I have also said that the existence of a fanciful magical jesus as described in the gospels is improbable,
I have also maintained that the existence of a human Yeshua Bin Josef is "Not Proven"
You, on the other hand have only assertions, no contemporary evidence' and a misunderstanding of what the historians are actually saying viz: There may have been a human jesus but not one of the people you quoted supports the existence of a magical jesus as described in the gospels.
That supports my position.
Do not conflate the existence of a minor, jewish,executed agitator (there were many such claiming to be Messiahs at the time) with the magical "son of god figure" for which there is no evidence, not a shred.
Au contraire, if you look at my track record on these forums I am sceptical of all unevidenced and unfounded claims.
What makes it difficult for me (and worse for you) is your inability to comprehend the difference between an historical jesus figure who may or may not have existed and the magical, world changing, politicised, jesus figure you desperately wish to believe in who was invented many years after the possible (and final) death of the human and jewish one.
Has your comprehension muscle kicked in yet? Do I have to repeat?
Once again, from an earlier post of mine Jo: Flex your comprehension please try not to misrepresent me:
Read what I wrote Jo...there is no evidence for a human Jesus at all except through hagiographic probability The verdict must be "NOT PROVEN".
There is even less probability( and NO EVIDENCE AT ALL) for a divine Jesus, that is your dilemma
@ Old man shouts
I think we agree that history has not proven the Jesus of the Bible.
Do you agree that the historical Jesus is probable?
Do you agree that what history says should not be our primary determining factor in our faith or lack thereof?
Just trying to get a baseline and a common understanding.
@ Jo
The historical human Jesus figure is "Not Proven" as I said many times.
The divine magical Jesus of the gospels and later bible texts is wildly improbable.
You can believe in as much fanciful shit as you like as long as you do not;
1: try and distort historical fact to suit your belief
2: Try and make laws based on your belief
3. Teach your belief as fact to children
4. Knock on my door or invade my public and private spaces to promote your wacky belief.
5. Do not lie to my face about your belief
Treat your beliefs like your penis, don't take it out unless invited by an adult.
There you are then, an understanding based on factual understanding, and common politeness.
@Old man shouts clouds
Like arakish would say:
Where is that 1000 agrees button?
JO: I wish you would stop thinking in black and white. Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence. We have no evidence for the existence of Jesus and therefore no reason to assert belief. "Probability has nothing to do with anything."
We can not know anything for certain. If your Jesus character exists, it is up to you to prove the existence and not for us to begin turning over rocks looking for it. With all information currently available. there is no reason to assume the existence of the Jesus of the bible. The magic man who impregnated a virgin and then reinvented himself as his own son by passing through a womb. Could a man named Jesus have existed in First Century Jerusalem? Sure. Could the bible stories be based on such a man? Sure (But more likely the Greek Apollonius of Tyana who was real.) After all the first new Testaments were stories told in Greek.
@Jo "If the Bible was complied 200 years after its writing and 100 years after the oldest extant manuscript, that is good to know."
The Bible was not completed and it is not completed today. Different Churches use different bibles. There is no OFFICIAL BIBLE. It does not and has never existed.
I am going to cut you some slack Jo because I believe that you are truly trying. Where I grew up, I was surrounded by religion and god. Heaven, hell, and angels were accepted like air and water, it just WAS. And when you are surrounded by such a noise, it is almost impossible to separate yourself from the many tales you believe it. But in here, everything falls under the microscope of the cynical and skeptical eye.
The thing is, outside of just one book, the bible, jesus is not mentioned. And when you consider the era and technology available, this does raise strong questions. Two thousand years earlier the Babylonians had sorted out how to preserve writing, on clay tablets. Ink and papyrus was also a new technology. That area of the planet was relatively densely populated, it had thousands of scholars diligently recording everything. The climate was conducive to the preservation of documents.
So, why this gaping hole in history, why this omission on who became the most influential person ever?
"ignorance of the nature of ancient source material"
There is/was a truckload of source material, the christian problem is that the source material mentions jesus zero number of times.
@ David Killens
Sorry for my delay in responding. Thanks for cutting me some slack.
I should explain that I an not in this situation "And when you are surrounded by such a noise, it is almost impossible to separate yourself from the many tales you believe it."
I have had my eyes wide open since I was a child.
As a child I had many reasons to reject the "noise" and did for a while.
Can we answer the God question using history?
"But in here, everything falls under the microscope of the cynical and skeptical eye."
I agree but have one significant observation that I want to mention.
Most Atheist I have conversed with do a great job of turning the skeptical, and often cynical eye, on Theism.
But they often fail to do the same for Atheism. Cynical towards say Christianity, but naive towards Atheism.
I can't find the psychological term, but it indicates that everyone tends to think they are rational, logical, and unbiased, while believing everyone else is the apposite. We all do it.
As Confucius said "Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others."
Hello Jo, it is nice to encounter you again. I hope you are doing well.
Yes, atheists are biased. But their bias is founded on their belief that there is not enough proof of a god. They arrived at that conclusion while pondering the bible and religion. For the great majority of atheists, they began as theists, but they became convinced that there was not enough proof.
So when you attempt to provide evidence of a persuasive argument, unfortunately, almost all of us have already pondered those questions, and arrived at conclusions contrary to yours. You are presenting the same evidence and arguments we have already seen.
I was raised in a christian family, and because I turned my skeptical mind towards religion, I changed my opinion. The easy way out would have been just to go with the flow, to accept without challenging what the bible and religion told me. In my case, I wanted a deity, I desired something spiritual to comfort me. And that process of seeking out answers took me over forty years. I did not want to let go of god. I did not try to become an atheist, I fought hard to remain a theist.
I am skeptical, and I do not deny cynical too. But I apply those same standards in everything in my life, from politics to economics, to how much I am paid, even my friendships with others.
@ David Killens
Yes, I am doing well. Thanks for your concern. I just don't always have the time for my AR hobby :-).
I think you identified an interesting point that I have noticed before.
Some Christians are naive when it comes to matters involving belief in God.
They swallow the "send me all your money and God will heal you" preachers.
They are overly trusting and often think that believing in God means to turn your brain off.
On the other end of the spectrum are those who are cynical.
All believers are delusional, and the Bible is all plagiarized lies.
I think both positions are flawed and cause the holder to miss the genuine.
I think cynicism is not only bad but wrong. It hobbles the holder.
It causes them to suspect bad even when good is present.
I hope you don't mind me asking these questions, but I feel compelled to.
Do you think of yourself as untrustworthy as you do everyone else?
Has your experiences in life taught you that people and life in general cannot be trusted?
Have you not experienced acceptance and unconditional love in your life?
Have you never known goodness or at least witnessed it?
Do you not see any goodness or beauty in neutral nature?
How can you have a friendship or relationship with someone when you are cynical?
Has it ever caused you to misjudge people or events and assume bad when good was the intent?
How can a cynical person be a happy person?
I am not being judgmental at all.
I can slip into cynicism myself if I don't watch out.
@Jo
The author of that blog came here to AR; it didn't go so well for him.
@ Nyarlathotep
Thanks, I had no idea.
@ Jo
You would do well to actually read links you post in future, and at least try to understand them.
If you had some knowledge on the origins of your faith you would disregard such imposters. Research the authors Jo....every link you posted is either from an apologist, a committed and fanatical christian or complete fabricator.
Make sure when you quote a line from an historian, ensure you understand what their entire thrust of argument is. You have been caught several times misquoting.
They only fuel your confirmation bias. I warned you not to use apologist sites, they muddle your thinking.
Continually bringing up fraudulent entries in Josephus ( not contemporary either) or partial quotes from Tacitus ( not contemporary and reporting only the beliefs of a jewish sect, not facts) only makes you and the people who repeat such ill researched content complete idiots at best and liars at worst.
Yale university do a lovely video series on the origins of christianity, try reading the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels...available free and above all do this:
This is the Historical Method :
“Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
- Who is telling us this?
- How do I know if I can trust them?
- Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
- How do I know if this document is genuine? "
Belief has no place in history, facts and evidence do....
" Research the authors " .by old man shouts
One of the best advice I concur. It should be applied to any topic attempting to convince us of something whether it agrees with our original position or not. When I am asked to read something, that is the first thing I do and glad to do it because it saved me hours of reading garbage. Best thing I did many years ago.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Jo
Yeah, he sure loved to straw-man, plagiarize, and contradict himself. Told us the bible was canonized 30 years after Constantine. Then told us it was canonized over 100 years before Constantine. Told us Constantine had 50 bibles constructed, then told us the bible didn't exist in Constantine's time. Go figure.
A Jo
Jo, your head and your arse are in far too much contact, Gathercole is a doctor of DIVINITY. His bio is reproduced below. Like most apologists not concerned with the truth you appeal to a false authority.
"Dr Gathercole's main academic interest is the interpretation of the New Testament. Having begun as a classicist and also worked in the field of early Judaism, he is particularly fascinated by the connections between the New Testament and the literature contemporaneous with it. His principal theological interests are christology, and the doctrine of the atonement. He is currently writing a book on the way in which canonical and apocryphal Gospels treat the early Christian kerygma.
Dr Gathercole would be particularly interested in supervising doctoral research in Pauline studies, the christology of the Gospels, and extra-canonical Gospels.https://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon-gathercole
How would such a letter demonstrate any objective evidence that Jesus (if he existed), was anything but human Jo?
I find your bar for belief in unevidenced superstition (like all theists) is ridiculously low Jo. Tellingly though, it is only this low for your chosen superstition.
If we found a signed Affidavit from Jesus stating he was entirely human, would you immediately believe this Jo? Now ask yourself why it is you would likely doubt a claim we absolutely know is possible Jo, namely that a human existed, yet based on identical evidence expect us to believe something we have zero evidence has ever occurred, namely a supernatural deity exists, and that it was made flesh?
The era in which these superstitious fantasies originate, and even centuries later when they were fabricated and took hold, were epochs of great ignorance and superstition by any contemporary standard Jo.
If you expect me to believe ANYTHING then I set the same objective standard for belief, that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support any claim.
You on the other hand set an a biased and arbitrary standard, one you don't afford to any other belief, as we have seen evidenced by your response in my thread asking for ten examples of such beliefs outside of your religious beliefs, held without any objective evidence. You couldn't offer even one genuine example Jo.
Yet you keep claiming you try to be objective, as if you don't even grasp what that means. Just as you laughably claimed to be rational, but use known logical fallacies in all your arguments, as if you don't grasp what rational means, despite it being repeatedly explained to you. Then you baulk at people inferring dishonesty when you repeat the same fallacious arguments over and over?
Are you going to address you previous statements about Shakespeare?
Oi Leper, whose Yall?
Why do so many theists struggle with simple abbreviations?
Why would anyone need to study 'religion' in order to know a all powerful deity who has stated that he loves us deeply is all powerful, all knowing and wants to get to know us, and has supposedly put a deep yearning for him in our hearts ?
And of course which religion ?
Pages