Pagan Myths=Judeo, Christian, Islamic, religion.

[PilatesQuestion]

Paul is probably the most dynamic evidence for the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection.

That's like saying Edgar Rice Burroughs was evidence for Tarzan.

Paul was a prominent Pharisee with a cushy political position who gave this all up in order to join the sect of people he was trying to exterminate.

[Sargon The Grape]

Okay, so modern scholars agree (in super majorities) that these historical facts from the Gospels are absolutely true:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples went from despairing over His death to boldly believing in His life.
3. Jesus' disciples claimed to have seen Him in Resurrected form.
4. Jesus' tomb became empty for some reason.
5. The top Pharisee and rabid persecutor of Christians named Saul (Paul) of Tarsus completely changed his lifestyle after he claimed to have seen a Resurrected Jesus. He left his top political position to become one of the people he was persecuting, who did not even accept him at first.

Paul is probably the most dynamic evidence for the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection.

[youtube:w7zhlbut]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yHDBHxAfI[/youtube:w7zhlbut]

Well, what is your argument?

My argument is that I cannot find a single source outside of apologetics websites that backs up your claims. Apolegetics start with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, and seek evidence to support. Real scientists make observations first, then draw conclusions. When you can point me toward a source that most scientists studying the subject (read: archaeologists) agree is valid, get back to me. In the meantime, I happen to know that no such source exists, and thus refer you back to the video above for my rebuttal to your all your arguments.

[PilatesQuestion]

@Solitary: Modern scholars not only study the reliability of the Christian Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) but also the historical accounts written by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Tertellion, and others.

Studying the reliability, rather than studying the document, isn't scholarship, it's apologism.  (Studying the reliability starts with the premise that it's reliable, then looking to see if there's anything that would contradict that premise.  As far as scholarship goes, that's a few steps down from piss-poor.)

SCHOLARS doubt most of the Bible,  Christian apologists are convinced of its reliability.

@Colanth: Could you provide Biblical references for your claims? Paul does talk about Jesus' crucifixion and Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 2, for starters. Paul wrote his letters less than 40 years after the death of Jesus.

1) There's no ACTUAL evidence that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed.

2) There's no extant writing claiming to be Paul's from "40 years after the death of Jesus".  Ignatius of Antioch wrote (ca 110 CE) something similar to parts of Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians - which may or may not mean something.  (The books could have been quoting Ignatius.  Writing in 110, he would have had absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the events.  Most likely not even second hand knowledge.)  See also //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Criticism

Mark wrote his Gospel

This is one of the most common marks of a total lack of scholarship.  Almost every scholar (not apologists) agrees that the gospels weren't written by people with the names of the gospels.

about 50 years after Jesus' death.

See #1 above and, since the earliest writing that could have been part of what later became the Bible dates to 110, we can't know that.  The "no later than 60 CE" or "no later than 70 CE" are faulty textual analyses ("the author would certainly have mentioned momentous events occurring later if he had been writing later" - bullshit) by people who need the Bible to have been written by people who actually knew Jesus.  If I write a book about Lincoln's last day, now, of course I wouldn't include anything that happened after 4/15/1865, if I wanted it to claim that it was written by someone who knew him.  They may have been primitive by our standards, but they weren't morons.

Luke, Matthew, and John wrote their Gospels within the century of Jesus' death, so these documents were not written centuries later. :)

Again - no.  If you can present a manuscript that confidently dates (C-14 will do) from, say, 70 CE or earlier, everyone would be interested.

But "we have documents written by so-and-so that we know were written no later than 73 CE and mention Yeshua ben Yosuf"?  That's Christian myth, not verified history.  Only people with degrees that DON'T qualify them to know any more about it than anyone else claim that as an expert opinion.  Experts say "we don't have any evidence".

Oh, we DO have evidence that a lot of the claims are FALSE.  Like Jesus of Nazareth?  The town that didn't exist until long after he was dead?  (Where Nazareth is were 2 farms in the 1st century.)  We even know where the myth came from.  It was Jesus the Nazorite, one dedicated to God from birth.  It got mistranslated to Nazarene.  Once people believed that Jesus came from a place named Nazareth, they started going "there" (like they go to his "tomb", even though its actual location, if it even exists, is pure conjecture).  And, if you like Josephus as an accurate source, he made an exhaustive list of all cities and towns in the area - and never mentioned anyplace called Nazareth.  (And his reference to Jesus is such an obvious forgery to scholars that it's not disputed.)

There's a lot more actual evidence that the Jesus of the Bible never existed than there is that he existed (which is actually none at all).

1. That's why I'm not talking about most of the Bible, just the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
2. 1 Corinthians and Galatians are confirmed to be written by Paul. Check out my sources.
3. Though all of the Gospels were written anonymously (another mark of authenticity), the early church knew who wrote them because their writers were still alive when the tradition was started.
4. Even if the first reliable NT document we have came from 110 AD, that would still be more reliable than the documents we have on Alexander the Great.
5. Scholars have studied the documents and are talking about their dates. Again, check my sources in this thread for yourself. They are written by people with PhDs and Masters.
6. The Nazareth dispute has been settled already, in The Case for Christ. It was a small insignificant village, not even a Roman city. Actually, this further validates the stories about Jesus since He did not live in a huge metropolis.

[PilatesQuestion]

If you don't believe that the historical accounts about Jesus are accurate

There are no historical accounts of Jesus, there are only Biblical accounts.  And, since the "history" of the Bible is so obviously wrong in so many places, it's not an historical source.

Before the historical accounts of Jesus were written down, they were preserved through a very reliable oral tradition

No evidence of that AT ALL.  The disciples, the martyrs - all later Christian myth as far as actual evidence is concerned.  The fact that Christianity asserts that the Pauline works date from around 70 CE isn't evidence that they do.  The fact that Ignatius' documents (which may actually be the SOURCE of the Pauline documents) DO date from around 110 CE DOES mean that they do.

Moreover, the Gospels were written during the lifetimes of Jesus' closest followers.

As I've said before, a) "Jesus' closest followers" is myth, and we have absolutely no idea when the gospels were written (or by whom).

Furthermore, the writings of Paul can be dated earlier than Mark's Gospel and are very well validated by modern scholars.

And again, no, for reasons I gave you upthread.

We could argue all day as to why Jesus is different from pagan deities, but it really comes down to the simple fact that Jesus' Resurrection stands apart from all pagan mystery religions.

You could argue all day.  Most Christians could argue all day.  Scholars laid this to rest by the end of the 19th century.  From there on, it's just more of the myth being propagated.

1. Except for Josephus and Tacitus, that is.
2. Scholars who are experts in first century Judaism know that the oral tradition was taught in their schools in order to preserve their laws and texts. Paper was rare and expensive, so the minds of young people had to cultivated early on in order to train them in the skill of large-scale memorization. Check out my sources. By the way, I'm glad you brought up the martyrs, because this serves as validation of their claims.
Even if the earliest document we have about Jesus was 110 AD, it would still be more reliable than the documentation we have on Alexander the Great. But we do have earlier documentation.
3. The Gospels were written within 'Jesus' century' (30 AD-130 AD). Check out my sources and see for yourself. Don't take my word for any of this.
4. The funny thing is that the Pagan Copycat Theory was created about the 19th century and was laid to rest by most scholars by the next century. It's already been disproved by people who are smarter than I am, so check out my sources.

[PilatesQuestion]

Before the historical accounts of Jesus were written down, they were preserved through a very reliable oral tradition

The oral tradition!  Yeah, like that's really reliable.  There is absolutely no record of the original story, so no one can go back to see what the original story even said.  There's nothing magical or superior about the oral tradition.  It was just the only thing available to illiterate primitive people who passed on stories, much the way people pass on gossip and rumors today.

First-century Jewish oral tradition was way better than twenty-first-century American oral tradition for reasons I've stated upthread. Research the area for yourself. :)

[PilatesQuestion]

One could debate the 'similarities' between Jesus and pagan gods for a long time, but the truth of the matter is that there is no pagan myth which compares to the story of Jesus' Resurrection. :)

Jesus' Resurrection is the last ressurrection story in the very ancient and looong sacrificed and ressurrected kings cycle in pagan myth(s). It's not original.
The way Jesus was killed is the one of the most ancient sacrificial rituals; an 'imitation' of a sacred king being sacrificed on an oak tree bended backwards, tied in what is called '5 folds' (you don't want me to describe that) with willow branches by 12 men -and women- who dance around him in violent ecstasy with joy -really high on natural lsd- beat and castrate him, cut him into pieces (he is intoxicated) and eat some of his flesh, keep his head and genitals for prophetic rituals, so people would continue to thrive in good health. One of the 12 men (tanist who leads the ritual) gets to be the 'scared king' and mates with women (priestess of goddesses) and killed in the same way... Needlessly to say this is a 'Jewish' tradition in the first place, actually what is adopted by them from as a mixture of some cults descending from the same one. These 'tanists' wear a 'buck's head' during this ritual. Hence old depictions of Moses with horns, a tradition misunderstood -naturally they had no accumulation or historical process of thought to connect their 'monotheist' religion with its matriarchal pagan roots- and conveyed in Christian period till 500 years ago and beyond. (Michalengelo's Moses has horns for example, but not buck horns of course. Alexander the great has horns...all kings wear horns. A buck is a scared animal, it's powerful and it has horns. This horn even has a certain description. It has 9 branches, aspects of the Goddess.)

Jesus is the last 'sacred king' sacrificed to the god -which was a goddess in it first form- for the goodness and salvation of all people. The pieta scene for example is a changed form of this. A young man is lying dead in the lap of a woman whose -who is depicted young, because she is an ever virgin, again very ancient pagan- hands are looking upwards in an gesture between offering and praying. (As a prototype, it could vary)  While the mother was the goddess in the original cult -no male figures then; no fathers or gods, only sons and lovers which are the same thing that transformed to each other, hunted down, mated and killed- in thousands of years, Mary became the shrine that Jesus was offered to the God himself.  

So if he existed, he would be comparable to countless poor men, who were sacrificed very violently.

....Jesus' Resurrection was nothing like those stories.

[Sargon The Grape]

Not even gonna bother with the first two.

3. Though all of the Gospels were written anonymously (another mark of authenticity)

"Anonymous" means "anyone could have written it." Which means for all you know, the early Church wrote it themselves and made the whole thing up.

4. Even if the first reliable NT document we have came from 110 AD, that would still be more reliable than the documents we have on Alexander the Great.

The writings documenting Alexander's life were written in his time. That alone makes them more reliable.

5. Scholars have studied the documents and are talking about their dates. Again, check my sources in this thread for yourself. They are written by people with PhDs and Masters.

Name one of these anonymous scholars. I'm dying to hear who they are. Somehow I suspect your reason for keeping them anonymous is because they have no degrees in archaeology whatsoever.

6. The Nazareth dispute has been settled already, in The Case for Christ. It was a small insignificant village, not even a Roman city. Actually, this further validates the stories about Jesus since He did not live in a huge metropolis.

Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century C.E. "The Case for Christ" and its author can go suck a nut.

[Sargon The Grape]

....Jesus' Resurrection was nothing like those stories.

Repeating this statement doesn't make it less of a lie.

[PilatesQuestion]

Not even gonna bother with the first two.

3. Though all of the Gospels were written anonymously (another mark of authenticity)

"Anonymous" means "anyone could have written it." Which means for all you know, the early Church wrote it themselves and made the whole thing up.

4. Even if the first reliable NT document we have came from 110 AD, that would still be more reliable than the documents we have on Alexander the Great.

The writings documenting Alexander's life were written in his time. That alone makes them more reliable.

5. Scholars have studied the documents and are talking about their dates. Again, check my sources in this thread for yourself. They are written by people with PhDs and Masters.

Name one of these anonymous scholars. I'm dying to hear who they are. Somehow I suspect your reason for keeping them anonymous is because they have no degrees in archaeology whatsoever.

6. The Nazareth dispute has been settled already, in The Case for Christ. It was a small insignificant village, not even a Roman city. Actually, this further validates the stories about Jesus since He did not live in a huge metropolis.

Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century C.E. "The Case for Christ" and its author can go suck a nut.

The authors of the Gospels were among the early church and made it known that they were writing Gospels. Mark received information from Peter, who was an early church leader. Luke traveled with Paul, another early church leader. Matthew and John were an early church leaders themselves. What's more interesting is that Mark, Luke, and Matthew were chosen by God to write Gospels, even though they were 'insignificant' in human terms.

Which documents were those?

The scholars can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus ... ting+jesus
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-J ... for+christ
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection ... n+of+jesus
http://www.amazon.com/On-Guard-Defendin ... uard+craig

[Colanth]

How does he account for the early creeds about the life of Jesus? Or Josephus and Tacitus?

Josephus is known (except by Christian apologists) to be a later insertion (IOW, a forgery).  The language is not Josephus'.

Tacitus never mentions Jesus, he says that the people took their name from the fact that their leader was anointed (christus).  "Christ" isn't Jesus' last name, "Jesus Christ" means "Jesus the anointed one".  ALL supposed saviors (there were dozens of them in 1st century Jerusalem) were anointed, so Tacitus could have been writing about the followers of any of them.

Next?

[Colanth]

Okay, so modern scholars agree (in super majorities) that these historical facts from the Gospels are absolutely true:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples went from despairing over His death to boldly believing in His life.
3. Jesus' disciples claimed to have seen Him in Resurrected form.
4. Jesus' tomb became empty for some reason.
5. The top Pharisee and rabid persecutor of Christians named Saul (Paul) of Tarsus completely changed his lifestyle after he claimed to have seen a Resurrected Jesus. He left his top political position to become one of the people he was persecuting, who did not even accept him at first.

Paul is probably the most dynamic evidence for the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection.

Well, what is your argument?

1-5 are all assertions.  Where is your evidence?  (The fact that someone said something isn't evidence that what he said is true.)

1. No evidence that Jesus existed or died.
2. See #1, and no evidence that he had any disciples.
3. See #2.
4. See #1 and exactly (to the nearest 10 feet) is this tomb?  And what is the actual evidence that it's the tomb of Jesus?
5. Assertion.  Evidence that any of it's true?

See?  The argument is that you have no argument, just a repeat of a 1,700 year old assertion.

[Colanth]

If Jesus did not exist, then Alexander the Great did not exist and thus the Greek Empire was a myth based off of previous empires.

A few hundred years after I die, there won't be any proof that I exist, so you're saying that I don't exist.

Or you just don't understand the difference between the claim that A the G existed and the one that Jesus existed.

I've cited my sources in this thread.

The "sources" are written by people who aren't experts in the fields needed to prove their assertions.  All they have expertise in is what Christianity claims, and it's those claims we need evidence for.  Evidence that they're not qualified to present, since they have no special education in the relevant fields.

Having a PhD in religion doesn't make you an expert in history.  Or archaeology.  Post sources by historians (people with PhDs in ancient Roman history) or archaeologists specializing in ancient Rome.  Books about Jesus by theologians or dentists aren't authoritative sources.

[Colanth]

Paul is probably the most dynamic evidence for the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection.

That's like saying Edgar Rice Burroughs was evidence for Tarzan.

Paul was a prominent Pharisee with a cushy political position who gave this all up in order to join the sect of people he was trying to exterminate.

Again - Christian myth isn't evidence.  An assertion isn't proof that the assertion is true - and ALL you've EVER posted is Christian assertion.  (Even your "sources" are nothing more than Christian assertion, which is all a theologian is an expert on).

If you want us to take you seriously, post some actual evidence.  Archaeological evidence.  Historical evidence (not myth, that's not historical evidence).  Physical evidence.  Evidence.  Assertion by 425 generations of Christians still isn't worth one potsherd.  And the potsherds say that the Bible is a fairy tale.

[Sargon The Grape]

The scholars can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus ... ting+jesus
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-J ... for+christ
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection ... n+of+jesus
http://www.amazon.com/On-Guard-Defendin ... uard+craig

Daniel Wallace: Theologian. Not an archaeologist; arguably not a scholar at all.
Lee Strobel: Journalist. Not any kind of scholar.
Gary Habermas: Historian, philosopher. Not an archaeologist.
William Lane Craigh: Theologian. See above.

So out of your four "modern scholars," you are 0 for 4 finding actual archaeologists arguing this position. Why am I not surprised?

[Colanth]

1. That's why I'm not talking about most of the Bible, just the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Which comes from the Bible.  There's no independent source.  (Sources that refer to the Bible story aren't independent sources.)

2. 1 Corinthians and Galatians are confirmed to be written by Paul. Check out my sources.

Theological sources are only authoritative inasmuch as what Christianity claims, not as to what is true.  (A degree in theology teaches you what theology says, it doesn't teach you what actually happened - or how to research what actually happened.)

3. Though all of the Gospels were written anonymously (another mark of authenticity)

Only to apologists.  To historians it's a mark of fiction.

the early church knew who wrote them because their writers were still alive when the tradition was started.

Yes - and when were the writers of the early Church alive?  IN THE SECOND CENTURY.  This has been authenticated scientifically.  (See Ignatius of Antioch, one of the first early Church leaders.)

4. Even if the first reliable NT document we have came from 110 AD, that would still be more reliable than the documents we have on Alexander the Great.

Not in the slightest.  (And there's not enough room in a forum post to explain why to you.  That's merely the claim of Christian apologists - who use EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE assertion about the Koran.)

5. Scholars have studied the documents and are talking about their dates.

And the earliest verified date is 110 CE, not something written by an eye witness.

Again, check my sources in this thread for yourself. They are written by people with PhDs and Masters.

OF THEOLOGY, not of history or archaeology or any RELEVANT subject.

6. The Nazareth dispute has been settled already, in The Case for Christ.

More assertion.  It hasn't been settled at all.

It was a small insignificant village, not even a Roman city.

There were NO Roman cities in Judea.  Not even Jerusalem was a Roman city.

Actually, this further validates the stories about Jesus since He did not live in a huge metropolis.

And if the Bible said that he had lived in Jerusalem you'd say that the fact that he DID live in a huge metropolis validates the story.

Bottom line?  Everyone in Jerusalem had heard of Nazareth, but Josephus, listing all the towns in Judea, had never heard of it.  Nonsense, unless you just need the story to be true.

You're still not showing that you're anything more than a Christian who starts with the premise that the Bible is true, and has VERY LITTLE actual knowledge of the place and times, or about how research is done.  (And research starts with the premise that the Bible is just a book, like any other book, and it may or may not be true, like any other book.)