Conclusive proof that Jesus was NOT divine

[Hydra009]

Yeah, but chess does not have fictional pieces.

More like playing blackjack against a guy with invisible, intangible cards.  And wouldn't you know it, he says he's never lost a hand.  He's also likely never played a hand.

[Randy Carson]

FTFY

I can be immature as well, Randy.

None of us is alone in that regard.

[stromboli]

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

The Christian Era and the Last Great Revision of Judaism

30 C.E. to appx. 73 C.E

The conflict between the Hellenism and the traditions of ethnic Judaism was nowhere more obvious than in the northern part of Palestine, which had been so often subject to conquest and which, being on the major trade route between Asia Minor and the Transjordan, was constantly subjected to foreign influence. This northern region apparently didn't even consider itself to be Jewish, but rather a separate nation that had been annexed, apparently involuntarily, by the Maccabean kings of Israel. So here you have Hellenized Semitics under the influence and control of Jewish kings, looking elsewhere for philosophical guidance. It was a volatile mix.
Into this little region, called Galilee, was born a stubborn iconoclast. He resented the Roman occupation but accepted its rule. He was an intellect who understood at least the rudiments of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy and the complex theology of the Semitic Jews around him. But he would have none of it. He felt that there had to be a better way to live. He grew up a suburb of the capital of Galilee, in a place called Nazareth. His name was Jesus.

At least, that's the mythology that has grown up around this figure. For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

Indeed, when scholars apply the Negative Evidence Principle, it begins to look like the Jesus we know from the New Testament is the result of late first-century mythmaking.

The Negative Evidence Principle is, of course, not foolproof. It is not a proof in itself, but is rather a guideline, a good rule of thumb. How useful and reliable it is, of course, is subject to debate among logicians. Here's how the N.E.P. works - it states that you have good reason for not believing in a proposition if the following three principles are satisfied: First, all of the evidence supporting the proposition has been shown to be unreliable. Second, there is no evidence supporting the proposition when the evidence should be there if the proposition is true. And third, a thorough and exhaustive search has been made for supporting evidence where it should be found.

As for the first point, the only somewhat reliable, secular evidence we have for the life of Jesus comes from two very brief passages in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. And Josephus was a prolific writer - he frequently wrote several pages on the trial and execution of individual common thieves, but on Jesus, he is silent except for two paragraphs, one of which is a known interpolation, and the other is highly suspect. Other references to Jesus in secular writings are ambiguous at best, or known to be later interpolations, or both. The earliest references to Jesus in the rabbinical literature come from the second century, even though known historical figures such as John the Baptist merit considerable discussion, even though his impact on Judaism was minimal. There are no references to Jesus in any of the Roman histories during his presumed lifetime. That he should be so thoroughly ignored is unlikely given the impact the gospel writers said he had on the events and politics of the Jewish kingdom.

So we have to turn to Christian literature for help.

At this point, caution is called for in examining first century Christian literature. This caution is made necessary by the fact that during this era, it was not considered wrong to write your own material and ascribe it to someone else, someone you consider your philosophical mentor, in whose name and style you are writing. Indeed, not only was this a common practice, but it was actually a skill taught in the schools of the day. This practice has made modern scholarship enormously difficult in dealing with who actually wrote the New Testament books and when. The problem, though difficult, is not insoluble, and modern scholarship has developed techniques which have been applied to early Christian writings, to find out who is saying what, when and why. When these techniques are applied to these early Christian writings, the results have been quite surprising.

The writings of Paul accepted as genuinely his (Galatians I and II and Thessalonians I and II, Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Phillipians, and possibly Colossians) are by far the most pristine of any early Christian literature we have. They were probably written beginning in the fifth decade of the first century - well after the events of Jesus' life. When the letters are examined in isolation, it becomes apparent that Paul was ignorant of the doctrine of the virgin birth, that he never spoke in terms of having lived in Jesus' time, nor does he mention that any of his mentors were contemporaries of Jesus, nor that Jesus worked any miracles and he appparently did not associate the death of Jesus with the trial before Pilate. Only in Galatians 1:19 does he make reference to a contemporary Jesus, and then only in terms of James being the "Lord's brother." The use of the term "Lord's" even makes that single reference somewhat questionable to scholars, as the word "Lord's" did not have currency until the late 2nd. century. So the Pauline letters, at least the reliably Pauline letters, aren't good witnesses for a Jesus of the first half of the first century. What makes this particularly interesting, is that other non-Canonical early Christian pre-Gospel literature make the very same omissions.

There you go, Randy. More reading material. Big picture. Keep reading.

[Randy Carson]

The writings of Paul accepted as genuinely his (Galatians I and II and Thessalonians I and II, Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Phillipians, and possibly Colossians) are by far the most pristine of any early Christian literature we have. They were probably written beginning in the fifth decade of the first century - well after the events of Jesus' life. When the letters are examined in isolation, it becomes apparent that Paul was ignorant of the doctrine of the virgin birth, that he never spoke in terms of having lived in Jesus' time, nor does he mention that any of his mentors were contemporaries of Jesus, nor that Jesus worked any miracles and he apparently did not associate the death of Jesus with the trial before Pilate. Only in Galatians 1:19 does he make reference to a contemporary Jesus, and then only in terms of James being the "Lord's brother." The use of the term "Lord's" even makes that single reference somewhat questionable to scholars, as the word "Lord's" did not have currency until the late 2nd. century. So the Pauline letters, at least the reliably Pauline letters, aren't good witnesses for a Jesus of the first half of the first century. What makes this particularly interesting, is that other non-Canonical early Christian pre-Gospel literature make the very same omissions.

Wouldn't you benefit more from actually reading the NT yourself rather than following guides who are misrepresenting it to you?

Three points from the passage you quoted:

1. There are genuine writings of Paul. Keep that in mind as you contemplate Jesus Mythicism.

2. Concerning the Virgin Birth "absent" in Paul's letters:

Why Didn’t Paul Mention the Virgin Conception?
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/why-didnt-paul-mention-the-virgin-conception/

Paul’s Silence is Not Enough

We need to be very careful about drawing conclusions from silence. Paul may not have mentioned the virgin conception simply because it was widely understood or assumed. Paul may also have been silent because it was not the focus or purpose of his letters (which are often devoted to issues related to the Church). Remember that Paul was a contemporary of Luke (who was one of the two authors who wrote extensively about the conception of Jesus). Paul appears to be very familiar with Luke’s’ gospel (he quotes Luke in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). If Paul disagreed with Luke’s account of the conception, we would expect to hear Paul say something about it in his letters. Paul never refuted or openly questioned the claims of Luke regarding the “virgin conception”.

Paul’s Statements May Be More Than Enough

Critics also cite two verses in Paul’s letter as specific proof that Paul was not aware of Jesus’ virgin conception. The first is found in Paul’s letter to the Galatians:

Galatians 4:4-5
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Paul says that Jesus was “born of a woman” and not “born of a virgin”. Critics have argued that this is proof that Paul was unaware of the virgin conception. But this is not necessarily the case. Many scholars have observed that the expression, “born of a woman, born under the Law” implies that Jesus had no earthly father because Paul curiously chose to omit any mention of Joseph in this passage. It was part of the Hebrew culture and tradition to cite the father alone when describing any genealogy, yet Paul ignored Joseph and cited Mary alone, as if to indicate that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. In addition to this passage in the letter to the Galatians, critics also cite the openly lines of Paul’s letter to the Romans to make a case against Paul’s knowledge of the virgin conception:

Romans 1:1-4
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord

Critics claim that Paul’s statement that Jesus was a “descendant of David according to the flesh” reveals the fact that Paul believed Joseph, a descendant of David, was the physical father of Jesus. But careful examination of this letter leaves open the possibility that Paul may simply have been referring to the fact that Mary was herself was also a descendant of David. Mary’s relationship to David was important, because Joseph was a descendant of Jeconiah, the King of Judah described in 2 Kings 24:8. Jeconiah was cursed by God:

Jeremiah 22:30
“Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days ; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.’ “

According to this passage, no descendant of Jeconiah would ever sit on the throne of David. If Jesus was a direct descendant of Joseph, he would be excluded according to this curse, as Joseph was in the line of Jeconiah. But Paul consistently omits Joseph when describing the genealogy of Jesus. In addition, Paul later refers to Jesus as the “son of God” in the same passage from the letter to the Romans. Paul often used this expression to describe Jesus, and Paul was consistent and clear about Jesus’ divinity throughout his letters. If Paul believed that Jesus was born of a human mother and father, we would expect Paul to describe how a normal man, born of human parents, could be God Himself. Paul never does that, and this is consistent with the fact that Paul was aware of the virgin conception.

Paul’s writings simply cannot be used in isolation to determine what he knew (or didn’t know) about the virgin conception. It’s hard to believe that a man familiar with Luke’s gospel would be ignorant of the birth narrative Luke wrote.

3. Jesus before Pilate:

1 Timothy 6:12-14
12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ

[Baruch]

Jesus didn't turn on his followers to the authorities, even under torture.  Usually when faced with a Roman authority, people squealed like stuck pigs, even implicating their own mother ... out of terror.

[reasonist]

Please wake me up when the apologist(s) have discovered ONE falsifiable claim that we can TEST with the scientific method and either prove or disprove with empirical evidence.
In the meantime I trust the people who have a bit more grey cells than all of us. They are not infallible either but they sure have more information and knowledge than the flock.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y


I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving things to be true but proving them to be false.
Lawrence M. Krauss

The opposite of religious dogma. Religion only wants to prove claims to be true (without empirical evidence) at all cost.

[Randy Carson]

The opposite of religious dogma. Religion only wants to prove claims to be true (without empirical evidence) at all cost.

Empirical evidence? How does a historian repeat something that occurred in the past?

Does this mean that historians cannot know what happened hundreds or thousands of years ago?

“We have no direct access to the past. Once something happens, it is over and done with. There is no way to repeat a past event all over again. This makes historical evidence different from the kinds of evidence used in the hard sciences. In science, you can repeat an experiment. In fact, you have to repeat the experiment. Once an experiment is repeated sufficiently with the same results, a kind of predictive probability is established that the same results will obtain if the experiment is conducted one more time….”

“With history, though, we don’t have the luxury of being able to repeat an event once it happens and so we look for other kinds of evidence. How do we know if we’ve proved something historically? Technically, we cannot prove a single thing historically. All we can do is give enough evidence to convince enough people (hopefully nearly everyone) about a certain historical claim, for example that Lincoln really did deliver the Gettysburg Address or that Julius Caesar really did cross the Rubicon. If you want to demonstrate that either historical event actually occurred, you need to marshal some convincing evidence. In neither of these cases, of course, is there really much doubt….”

“Historians cannot repeat the past and so have to base their judgments on evidence that establishes most probably what happened.” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 37-39.)

[reasonist]

You not understand. You alien?

Your cult claims the repeated suspension of the laws of physics through miracles. Name one of them that we can take to a lab and repeat. One that we can test through the mathematical method. One which we have tangible evidence, such as fossils, or find a talking snake, a unicorn or cockatrice. Anything that we can disseminate, dissect and/or repeat.

Proving bronze age scribes' truth with more scribblings and claims doesn't cut it. If you can't come up with any, you practice racketeering and deception.

[Randy Carson]

You not understand. You alien?

Your cult claims the repeated suspension of the laws of physics through miracles. Name one of them that we can take to a lab and repeat. One that we can test through the mathematical method. One which we have tangible evidence, such as fossils, or find a talking snake, a unicorn or cockatrice. Anything that we can disseminate, dissect and/or repeat.

Proving bronze age scribes' truth with more scribblings and claims doesn't cut it. If you can't come up with any, you practice racketeering and deception.

How can anyone here in the material universe constrained by the laws of nature replicate an event which is supernatural in a laboratory?

If anyone could do such a thing, then it would not longer be supernatural, would it?

[reasonist]

How can anyone here in the material universe constrained by the laws of nature replicate an event which is supernatural in a laboratory?

If anyone could do such a thing, then it would not longer be supernatural, would it?

There ya go! Finally the light came on! Now you know why we don't believe in this mumbo jumbo. Whatever science proposes can be tested and replicated/calculated repeatedly, which cannot be done with any of the religious claims. Science works with observation, you work with revelation. The first has verifiable facts, the latter needs blind faith. The first is the search for truth, the latter is obscurantism.
Despite your attempts to convert people on an atheist forum, I owe you a great deal of gratitude. I can't speak for anybody else here, but you prompted me to do some additional research and digging in and that had the opposite effect from what you intended. Anybody with an objective mind has to come to the same conclusion: religion is a man made racket.
The difference between us is that I (we) have an open mind to any new information. I'd like to see a loving, caring entity that protects us and helps us in time of need. Your god is a cruel monster and doesn't deserve a thought wasted, but a loving sky daddy would be cool. But such an entity would have interfered long time ago and saved us from stupid superstition.
So if you would be as open to new evidence, we wouldn't have this debate. But what you are doing is defending nonsense at any cost. How is it working for you?
See, it's not who wins or loses this exchange. It's about who has the truth through facts. You certainly don't have any, which makes you credulous and gullible.

[Mike Cl]

How can anyone here in the material universe constrained by the laws of nature replicate an event which is supernatural in a laboratory?

If anyone could do such a thing, then it would not longer be supernatural, would it?

Supernatural=fiction.  And in each and every case--FACT!  If even one tiny piece of evidence could be produced, quick like the Easter Bunny, get to Skeptic Mag and claim your million!!!

[Randy Carson]

There ya go! Finally the light came on! Now you know why we don't believe in this mumbo jumbo. Whatever science proposes can be tested and replicated/calculated repeatedly, which cannot be done with any of the religious claims. Science works with observation, you work with revelation. The first has verifiable facts, the latter needs blind faith. The first is the search for truth, the latter is obscurantism.

So, your position is not simply one of science but of scientism - the belief that science can and will eventually explain everything.

This is a false view. Science simply cannot explain everything, and this is especially true in those areas which are not natural or material; in other words, the supernatural.

Despite your attempts to convert people on an atheist forum, I owe you a great deal of gratitude. I can't speak for anybody else here, but you prompted me to do some additional research and digging in and that had the opposite effect from what you intended. Anybody with an objective mind has to come to the same conclusion: religion is a man made racket.

Dialogue is good, and I thank those who have pushed me harder for answers to the objections of atheists.

The difference between us is that I (we) have an open mind to any new information. I'd like to see a loving, caring entity that protects us and helps us in time of need. Your god is a cruel monster and doesn't deserve a thought wasted, but a loving sky daddy would be cool. But such an entity would have interfered long time ago and saved us from stupid superstition.

It is your opinion that God is a cruel monster, but what is this based upon? Your own experience? Isn't that purely subjective and non-empirical data that cannot be replicated in a laboratory? Or is it based upon your interpretation of the Old Testament which, unless you claim infallibility for yourself, could be false?

I'm kinda leaning toward the latter of those two options, and I'm pretty sure I could explain the passages from the OT that trouble you in a more positive light than you have seen in the past. This may be helpful to you.

So if you would be as open to new evidence, we wouldn't have this debate. But what you are doing is defending nonsense at any cost. How is it working for you?

That is unclear. I enjoy what I'm doing here, and I get a lot out of it personally. Whether any of the seeds I'm planting in the minds of those reading my posts will bear fruit in the future may not be known in this life.

See, it's not who wins or loses this exchange. It's about who has the truth through facts. You certainly don't have any, which makes you credulous and gullible.

I suppose it depends on what you define as a "fact". For example:

• it is a fact that the Pilate Stone confirms the existence of Pontius Pilate thereby corroborating what was only known through scripture for 1900 years.
• It is a fact that we have nearly 30,000 manuscripts which enable us to reconstruct the original texts of the gospels with a stunning degree of certainty.
• It is a fact that the Telephone Game analogy often cited by atheists in their attempts to discredit the gospels does not apply to the writings of the New Testament.
• It is a fact that while there are numerous hypotheses about what happened to Jesus after he was nailed to the cross, none of them have the explanatory scope and depth of the resurrection hypothesis.

I could go on and on. The "facts" which I "don't have" are all contained in the OP's of my various threads.

Oh, yeah...I have facts. It's just easier for you to ignore them than it is for you to actually formulate coherent refutations of them.

[Mike Cl]

Oh, yeah...I have facts. It's just easier for you to pretend otherwise than it is for you to actually formulate coherent refutations of them.

???????????????????????????????

[Randy Carson]

???????????????????????????????

You have a question?

[u196533]

Hawkins’ statement in that video makes no sense.  "Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there was no time for god to create the universe."

The whole premise is that God predates and exists outside of the universe. Stating that God would have been constrained by time, which doesn’t exist without the universe, makes no sense if God exists outside the universe.  This logic is so obviously flawed I doubt he really believes it himself.  It makes me wonder what motivated him to state that.  It could be that as a physicist, he refuses to acknowledge anything can exist outside of our universe.  However, physicists propose other universes so I doubt that explains his statement.   
Even if you disagree with the premise of God, I think you have to admit his logic is flawed.  It would be interesting to hear him explain it.

Also, we have no idea what happened before the Big Bang and we will never know.  There is no data prior to the Big Bang so they just assume everything stated with that, but physicists really have no clue.