Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[he_who_is_nobody]

Can you give me the names of a few of the dying and rising gods you are refering to?

Odin, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Ganesha, Mithras, Tammuz, Jesus Christ, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, etc.

Mithras is not a dying and rising God. Carrier actually covers this in his lectures. He lists five that predate Jesus (the oldest being a goddess). I am sure the list of dying and rising gods is given in one of the videos posted on this thread.

 

[Collecemall]

I think the main reason why you and many others find Carrier's "work" to be so compelling is that you fail to realize that ALL historians would agree we have far less than 1% of the literary work from that time period. We don't even have first hand acounts of the existence of certain Roman Emporers who ruled after Christ. How many primary sources do we have for Alexander the Great? Yet you think it's noteable that we don't have any outside primary Christian sources who specifically refer to what Josephus' wrote about Christ?

It's a trick, SpecialFrog. Any 8th grade history teacher could have wrote the same book with the money you idiots donated to Richard Carrier. To extrapolate theories based on the lack of surviving literary works of the classical era is retarded.

Carrier addresses this in detail. We wish we had the things for Jesus that we have for Alexander the Great. As it is we have no clue who the gospels came from or where they came from or how many times removed the story is from an actual eyewitness (if one exists). This IS NOT the case for ATG. The historian Arrian wrote using sources from three eyewitnesses two of which were actual generals of Alexander. He names and identifies these sources as well as how he used them to generate a reliable account, and discusses their relative merits. We also have mentions of ATG and details about him in SEVERAL contemporary or eyewitness sources still extant, including the speeches of Isocrates and Demosthenes and Aeschinens and Hyperides and Dinarchus, the poetry of Theocritus, the scientific works of Theophrastus and the plays of Menander. This ignores the contemporary inscriptions and coins, sculptures, as well as other archaeological verifications of historical claims about ATG. Please don't try to pretend Jesus is anywhere nearly as well attested as ATG.

But Carrier makes it clear that just because we have more evidence for ATG in no way argues that Jesus didn't exist. It only argues that Jesus was many orders of magnitude less significant in his contemporary historical impact. It means he was a relative nobody. But plenty of nobodies exist. But that point doesn't permit the inference that Jesus did exist either.

Actually I think he says this in this video of one of his presentations that was posted in this very thread.

Where?

 

[thenexttodie]

I'm not going to reply to anymore nonsense. Either quote where Carrier makes the arguments you said OR DROP IT. Heaven forbid you admit you were wrong.

You are right and I am totally wrong. My mistake. Please tell now why Carrier believes any of the 66 books of the Bible were written.

Paul NEVER says anything about there being a living Jesus. Even the crucifixtion and burial he got from SCRIPTURE as he says in 1 Corintians 15: 3-4. Paul is oblivious to anything Jesus ever said or did. That is a fact that just plain does not sit well with any theory that includes historicity. Rather than saying "Joe, Bob, and Leroy were all there and SAW it! Why would you doubt?" He instead says in Galatians 3:1 "Oh you foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was foretold as crucified?" He is referring to SCRIPTURE again and that they had seen the relevant passages with their own eyes. This is just plain bizarre if there were in fact a man who was crucified and these people were there and knew about it.

You are obviously someone who would be unable to explain the significant contrast between Paul's ministry and that of the apostles.

Can you tell me which scriptures Paul got his information of Christs death and burial from?

 

[Collecemall]

Mithras is not a dying and rising God. Carrier actually covers this in his lectures. He lists five that predate Jesus (the oldest being a goddess). I am sure the list of dying and rising gods is given in one of the videos posted on this thread.

It's not just that we have all of those dying and rising gods as examples. We have direct evidence that this was done in the Christian faith very early. The Ascention of Isaiah was written in the first or second century just as the other gospels were and it does not place Jesus on Earth. It is a reconstruction of the myth about Innana (I forget the name and don't feel like reading to find it). There's no way to know if this is how Christianity started but the evidence is undeniable that Christians had already merged it's own story with the dying and rising god concept.

 

[Collecemall]

You are right and I am totally wrong. My mistake. Please tell now why Carrier believes any of the 66 books of the Bible were written.

Determined to foist your claims on to me eh?

Paul NEVER says anything about there being a living Jesus. Even the crucifixtion and burial he got from SCRIPTURE as he says in 1 Corintians 15: 3-4. Paul is oblivious to anything Jesus ever said or did. That is a fact that just plain does not sit well with any theory that includes historicity. Rather than saying "Joe, Bob, and Leroy were all there and SAW it! Why would you doubt?" He instead says in Galatians 3:1 "Oh you foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was foretold as crucified?" He is referring to SCRIPTURE again and that they had seen the relevant passages with their own eyes. This is just plain bizarre if there were in fact a man who was crucified and these people were there and knew about it.

You are obviously someone who would be unable to explain the significant contrast between Paul's ministry and that of the apostles.

Can you tell me which scriptures Paul got his information of Christs death and burial from?

I can only tell you what Paul said above and in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the SCRIPTURES, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the SCRIPTURES,"

Since he doesn't specify what scriptures no I can't tell you. I won't presume to know what isn't told. The cannon wasn't established until the second century ce and they held many books sacred that are no longer in the Bible, including the Wisdom of Solomon The Book of Enoch and others. Codex Sinaiticus for example includes 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Sirach and others. Jude 14 cites Enoch as scripture and Jude 9 quotes another now lost scripture tentatively identified as the Revelation of Moses. These are just a few of those we know about. So unless given it would be unwise on my part to speculate.

Paul confirms his visions again in Romans 16:25-26 Where he says "My gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ is according to a revelation" He also says the other apostles received their information from revelations as well. "Unto us" Paul says "God Revealed the secrets of the gospel through the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10) and in 1 Cor 15:1-8 as mentioned he says the gospel he preaches (which can only be from revelation as he confirms in Galatians and Romans) is the same gospel Peter and the others preached. This was the qualifying requirement to be an apostle (1 Cor 9:1 "Am I not an Apostle?""Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"). This just does not make sense if Jesus lived and breathed and they knew of his life and things he taught. Everything he knows came from scripture and revelation. I don't think he could make it any more clear that these were the only ways to know anything about Jesus.

Unless you want to be more specific I'll assume you're refering to Paul doing away with the requirement to convert to Judaism. I'm sure there are other differences we could discuss but that seems to be as large a contrast as there is.

 

[SpecialFrog]

thenexttodie, before I begin I will commend you on your ability to quote properly.

If so, you must agree that the default position when evaluating a claim of divine communication is that it is not true and that evidence otherwise is needed in order to shift from that position.

That's not quite how the Bible explains it but for now it's close enough.

So you agree that without evidence otherwise we should assume that Paul did not speak to a divine entity?

I think the main reason why you and many others find Carrier's "work" to be so compelling is that you fail to realize that ALL historians would agree we have far less than 1% of the literary work from that time period. We don't even have first hand acounts of the existence of certain Roman Emporers who ruled after Christ.

I suspect this is not true. Which emperors?

How many primary sources do we have for Alexander the Great?

Some and many sources close to his time.

Yet you think it's noteable that we don't have any outside primary Christian sources who specifically refer to what Josephus' wrote about Christ?

If the gospels are at all accurate then yes, it would be surprising if a figure who had played such a significant public role had left no evidence behind.

The Gospels were extrapolated from the information contained in the Epistles. (or is it visa versa?)

Citation needed.

Can you give me the names of a few of the dying and rising gods you are refering to?

Others have done so. Do you agree that the other examples are not historical figures?

One of Carrier's key points is that Jesus belongs to a certain reference class. Figures who are alleged to have done the sort of thing that Jesus is meant to have done are almost all mythological. Therefore in the absence of other evidence they are more likely to be mythological.

People who are meant to have done the sorts of things Alexander the Great is meant to have usually turn out to be historical. So again, with no other evidence, he is more likely to be historical.

In both cases there are exceptions and the default probability can be outweighed by evidence. Which we lack in the case of Jesus.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Can you give me the names of a few of the dying and rising gods you are refering to?

Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, Zalmoxis, and Inanna. Earlier you said you did three hours of research on Carrier, which consisted of you watching videos from him. [sarcasm]I am surprised you missed this one.[/sarcasm]

 

[thenexttodie]

I watched one his videos again in this thread a few days ago and to be honest I can't think of a single thing he said that was worth remembering. I'm sorry. If some of you what to argue his points for him I will respond.

 

[Collecemall]

How much of the gospel stories do you consider "historical"? What method do you use to determine that?

 

[SpecialFrog]

I watched one his videos again in this thread a few days ago and to be honest I can't think of a single thing he said that was worth remembering. I'm sorry. If some of you what to argue his points for him I will respond.

Feel free to just respond to my last post since that is kind of what we were doing.

 

[thenexttodie]

I watched one his videos again in this thread a few days ago and to be honest I can't think of a single thing he said that was worth remembering. I'm sorry. If some of you what to argue his points for him I will respond.

Feel free to just respond to my last post since that is kind of what we were doing.

Lol. ok. I'll try.

 

[thenexttodie]

So you agree that without evidence otherwise we should assume that Paul did not speak to a divine entity?

I don't think anyone would do well to assume that the Lord did not speak to Paul. Just as we should have not assumed that Nineveh was not a real city.

Let's put it another way. If Paul were alive today and he called me on the phone and said "Hey I just spoke to your uncle for the first time and he said this and this and so on" I would immediatley know if he was telling the truth or not. Because I have a close relationship with my uncle.

However you do not know my uncle and know nothing of him. So if Paul called you and told you that he spoke with him. You would have no way to determine whether or not he did in fact speak with him. And neither Paul nor I would have any way of convincing you.

I think the main reason why you and many others find Carrier's "work" to be so compelling is that you fail to realize that ALL historians would agree we have far less than 1% of the literary work from that time period. We don't even have first hand acounts of the existence of certain Roman Emporers who ruled after Christ.

Which emperors?

Domitian? I can't think right now. By all means prove me wrong!

How many primary sources do we have for Alexander the Great?

Some and many sources close to his time.

Some = almost nothing.

Yet you think it's noteable that we don't have any outside primary Christian sources who specifically refer to what Josephus' wrote about Christ?

If the gospels are at all accurate then yes, it would be surprising if a figure who had played such a significant public role had left no evidence behind.

I don't understand what you mean.

Can you give me the names of a few of the dying and rising gods you are refering to?

Others have done so. Do you agree that the other examples are not historical figures?

I'm not saying that there are none. It would not surprise me if there are. But it seems whenever someone like you gives an example of one it ends up not actually being one..

One of Carrier's key points is that Jesus belongs to a certain reference class. Figures who are alleged to have done the sort of thing that Jesus is meant to have done are almost all mythological..

What figures? What did they do?

 

[SpecialFrog]

So you agree that without evidence otherwise we should assume that Paul did not speak to a divine entity?

I don't think anyone would do well to assume that the Lord did not speak to Paul. Just as we should have not assumed that Nineveh was not a real city.

Yet you did agree that with no other evidence we must treat the hypothesis that Paul did not speak to any god as being more probable.

Let's put it another way. If Paul were alive today and he called me on the phone and said "Hey I just spoke to your uncle for the first time and he said this and this and so on" I would immediatley know if he was telling the truth or not. Because I have a close relationship with my uncle.

However you do not know my uncle and know nothing of him. So if Paul called you and told you that he spoke with him. You would have no way to determine whether or not he did in fact speak with him. And neither Paul nor I would have any way of convincing you.

Presumably your uncle exists and, if Paul just talked to him, is still alive and it would be possible for me to talk to your uncle myself. You could show me pictures of your uncle, documents attesting his life, etc.

None of that is true for any gods, making this a poor analogy.

Particularly since Paul vehemently disagrees with much of the Old Testament, which you insist comes from the same "uncle".

Which emperors [lack first hand accounts]?

Domitian? I can't think right now. By all means prove me wrong!

It took all of several seconds to determine that you are wrong. You should really verify claims you have heard before repeating them.

How many primary sources do we have for Alexander the Great?

Read this for an overview. There are some remaining contemporary texts and a lot of sources for which there is good reason to believe were based on primary sources -- including sources in Babylon and Persia that are genuinely independent of the Greek texts.

If the gospels are at all accurate then yes, it would be surprising if a figure who had played such a significant public role had left no evidence behind.

I don't understand what you mean.

I misremembered the nature of this part of the conversation. My apologies. I'll quote your starting point again and reply.

Yet you think it's noteable that we don't have any outside primary Christian sources who specifically refer to what Josephus' wrote about Christ?

There are Christian sources who wrote about Josephus without referring to what he wrote about Christ. I believe Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Why is that not notable that they failed to comment on what Josephus said about Jesus?

Incidentally, here is another academic article explaining why the Testimonium Flavium is entirely fabricated.

Can you give me the names of a few of the dying and rising gods you are refering to?

Others have done so. Do you agree that the other examples are not historical figures?

I'm not saying that there are none. It would not surprise me if there are. But it seems whenever someone like you gives an example of one it ends up not actually being one..

That's making a lot of assumptions. Feel free to look at the list that has been given in this thread.

But if it would not surprise you if there are then what is the issue with this claim?

One of Carrier's key points is that Jesus belongs to a certain reference class. Figures who are alleged to have done the sort of thing that Jesus is meant to have done are almost all mythological..

What figures? What did they do?

Here is an article summarizing the class of figures to which Carrier claims Jesus belongs. The author of the article is unconvinced whether Jesus meets all of the requirements of the category. You can assess for yourself what you think.

 

[thenexttodie]

you agree that without evidence otherwise we should assume that Paul did not speak to a divine entity?

I don't think anyone would do well to assume that the Lord did not speak to Paul. Just as we should have not assumed that Nineveh was not a real city.

Yet you did agree that with no other evidence we must treat the hypothesis that Paul did not speak to any god as being more probable.

There has been some misunderstanding here. Now I know why. You view divine communication not only as an event where God speaks to someone but to you, divine communication can also be when a person is speaking to God. To me these are 2 different things and the latter does not fit how I personally define "divine communication". To clarify;

I suspect millions of people speak to God each day. (Sadly because of your many attempts to put words in my mouth, I must point out that I am not saying that God speaks to millions of people each day.)

Let's put it another way. If Paul were alive today and he called me on the phone and said "Hey I just spoke to your uncle for the first time and he said this and this and so on" I would immediatley know if he was telling the truth or not. Because I have a close relationship with my uncle.

However you do not know my uncle and know nothing of him. So if Paul called you and told you that he spoke with him. You would have no way to determine whether or not he did in fact speak with him. And neither Paul nor I would have any way of convincing you.

Presumably your uncle exists and, if Paul just talked to him, is still alive and it would be possible for me to talk to your uncle myself. You could show me pictures of your uncle, documents attesting his life, etc.

None of that is true for any gods, making this a poor analogy.

I think it's a good analogy.

Particularly since Paul vehemently disagrees with much of the Old Testament.

I see.

It took all of several seconds to determine that you are wrong. You should really verify claims you have heard before repeating them.

I was thinking about Domitianus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3335883/Roman-coin-confirms-emperors-existence.html

Yet you think it's noteable that we don't have any outside primary Christian sources who specifically refer to what Josephus' wrote about Christ?

There are Christian sources who wrote about Josephus without referring to what he wrote about Christ. I believe Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Why is that not notable that they failed to comment on what Josephus said about Jesus?

What did they write about him?

Incidentally, here is another academic article explaining why the Testimonium Flavium is entirely fabricated.

It's a weak argument. And when you consider what Josephus wrote outside of the Testimonium Flavium. about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus it seems more logical that any unfitting verb syntax in the Test Flav was the result of scribes trying to make the text more easily readable. Just look at what he wrote about John the Baptist, and the brother of Jesus!

(This is what Josephus wrote about John the Baptist,
"Some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."


This is what he wrote about James the brother of Jesus,
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." )

Here is an article summarizing the class of figures to which Carrier claims Jesus belongs. The author of the article is unconvinced whether Jesus meets all of the requirements of the category. You can assess for yourself what you think.

Thank you for that. I did not catch any of this from the Carrier vids I saw. But have to to say I agree with author. I just don't find these types of arguments to be very compelling.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Yet you did agree that with no other evidence we must treat the hypothesis that Paul did not speak to any god as being more probable.

There has been some misunderstanding here. Now I know why. You view divine communication not only as an event where God speaks to someone but to you, divine communication can also be when a person is speaking to God.

No I don't. We appear to be talking about the same thing.

To summarize (again):
- many people claim that a divine being has spoken to them personally
- while I don't know that allof these claims are false, some are most certainly false
- we probably agree that a large majority of these claims are false, if only because you most likely regard all claims related to other gods to be false

Do you agree?

You could argue that most claims that your god has spoken to someone directly are true, though that seems problematic to me. Can we safely say that we agree that most claims that the God of the Bible has spoken personally to an individual are false?

If so, then if we have no other information we have to treat these claims as more likely to be false than true. Therefore we must make this assumption about Paul as well.

This does not mean that evidence cannot persuade us that Paul's claim is true. It just means that the evidence needs to be strong enough to overcome the prior probability.

(Sadly because of your many attempts to put words in my mouth, I must point out that I am not saying that God speaks to millions of people each day.)

This is the third time you have made this claim. Each time I have demonstrated it is untrue by quoting you directly. Stop making this dishonest claim.

Presumably your uncle exists and, if Paul just talked to him, is still alive and it would be possible for me to talk to your uncle myself. You could show me pictures of your uncle, documents attesting his life, etc.

None of that is true for any gods, making this a poor analogy.

I think it's a good analogy.

Okay then. Put me in touch with God or provide me with some evidence of His existence. If you can't do so then no, it is not.

It took all of several seconds to determine that you are wrong. You should really verify claims you have heard before repeating them.

I was thinking about Domitianus.

So there is more evidence for Jesus than for some dude who apparently declared himself Roman empire for a few weeks (without actually reigning in any way)? I'm shocked.

It hardly makes for a strong argument in Jesus's favour, though.

There are Christian sources who wrote about Josephus without referring to what he wrote about Christ. I believe Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Why is that not notable that they failed to comment on what Josephus said about Jesus?

What did they write about him?

I don't know offhand.

Incidentally, here is another academic article explaining why the Testimonium Flavium is entirely fabricated.

It's a weak argument. And when you consider what Josephus wrote outside of the Testimonium Flavium. about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus it seems more logical that any unfitting verb syntax in the Test Flav was the result of scribes trying to make the text more easily readable. Just look at what he wrote about John the Baptist, and the brother of Jesus!

Textual analysis is a standard method of evaluating ancient texts.

Though I agree that the bit about John the Baptists is probably authentic. So what? John the Baptist being real doesn't make the Gospels accurate. The Aeneid is pure fiction but has some actual historical figures in it.

And Carrier has argued that the reference to James is a reference to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

I haven't read his full justification for this claim as it is in a peer-reviewed journal to which I do not have access but it does demonstrate that all alleged references to Jesus in Josephus are disputed. It isn't like Jesus (which is the same name as Joshua) was an uncommon Jewish name.

Here is an article summarizing the class of figures to which Carrier claims Jesus belongs. The author of the article is unconvinced whether Jesus meets all of the requirements of the category. You can assess for yourself what you think.

Thank you for that. I did not catch any of this from the Carrier vids I saw. But have to to say I agree with author. I just don't find these types of arguments to be very compelling.

Again, this is not meant to be a compelling argument in and of itself. As with the Paul discussion above, this is about prior probability.

If you look at figures who meet most of the criteria on that list, the vast majority turn out to be mythological. Therefore if the only information you have is that the figure has been ascribed those characteristics then it is more probable that they are mythological rather than historical.

Again, evidence can overcome the baseline probability and mean that we should conclude that the figure probably was historical. Improbable things happen all the time.

Do you agree that Jesus meets most of the criteria in that list? If so, then it is reasonable to treat the baseline probability that he was historical as being low.

 

[thenexttodie]

Yet you did agree that with no other evidence we must treat the hypothesis that Paul did not speak to any god as being more probable.

There has been some misunderstanding here. Now I know why. You view divine communication not only as an event where God speaks to someone but to you, divine communication can also be when a person is speaking to God.

No I don't.

Yes you do. Here is one example of you doing just that.

If so, you must agree that the default position when evaluating a claim of divine communication is that it is not true and that evidence otherwise is needed in order to shift from that position.

That's not quite how the Bible explains it but for now it's close enough.

So you agree that without evidence otherwise we should assume that Paul did not speak to a divine entity?

SpecialFrog, your tendency to misrepresent what has been said, is obvious. While it might not be intentional, it is seriously annoying for me to have to have to constantly correct you.

In fact, you have done this so often, in this thread and the other one, I don't really even longer care to discuss anything with you. It's that bad.



I can understand how you might not remember some of my posts accurately, as I generally am not able to response immediately to your replies. But when you even seem to not even remember your own points accurately, Its just beyond bizarre.

 

[thenexttodie]

To summarize (again):
- many people claim that a divine being has spoken to them personally
- while I don't know that allof these claims are false, some are most certainly false
- we probably agree that a large majority of these claims are false, if only because you most likely regard all claims related to other gods to be false

Do you agree?[/quote]

It seems to me, that the Bible gives an account of the first and last time God ever spoke to anyone. This is consistent with my understanding of God's nature and reasons for him actually speaking to a certain few people.

Can we safely say that we agree that most claims that the God of the Bible has spoken personally to an individual are false?

If so, then if we have no other information we have to treat these claims as more likely to be false than true. Therefore we must make this assumption about Paul as well.

We have 60 some other books of the Bible, which you could to study in order to determine whether or not Pauls teachings really came from God. I believe they do. Lots of other people do not.

Put me in touch with God or provide me with some evidence of His existence.

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with God very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

 

[SpecialFrog]

There has been some misunderstanding here. Now I know why. You view divine communication not only as an event where God speaks to someone but to you, divine communication can also be when a person is speaking to God.

No I don't.

Yes you do. Here is one example of you doing just that.

So you agree that without evidence otherwise we should assume that Paul did not speak to a divine entity?

I acknowledge I used "speak to" in a colloqiaul sense there, intending it to means "was in communication with". However, I think my overall intent has been clear, particularly in this bit, which you quoted and then did not answer.

To summarize (again):
- many people claim that a divine being has spoken to them personally
- while I don't know that allof these claims are false, some are most certainly false
- we probably agree that a large majority of these claims are false, if only because you most likely regard all claims related to other gods to be false

Do you agree?

It seems to me, that the Bible gives an account of the first and last time God ever spoke to anyone. This is consistent with my understanding of God's nature and reasons for him actually speaking to a certain few people.

So that doesn't really answer the question.

Are you saying that the only people to whom God has spoken are the authors of the Bible (or characters in the Bible to whom God speaks)? This implies all other claims of this nature (such as made by alleged prophets of other gods, Joan of Arc, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, all the Republican presidential candidates, etc.) are false.

If so, this still imples that a majority of claims that your God has spoken to someone are still false.

But if you want we can define a special class of "biblical claims of God speaking to someone". Would you include authors of apocryphal gospels in this? What about books that are in the Orthodox cannon? What about the author or authors of the Pauline epistles not written by Paul (which includes at least four letters and possibly as many as seven)?

And do you agree that the claim "God spoke to Moses" can only be true if Moses actually existed?

We have 60 some other books of the Bible, which you could to study in order to determine whether or not Pauls teachings really came from God. I believe they do. Lots of other people do not.

How does studying the Bible tell us if Paul's teaching came from God? How can we tell if any of the Bible really came from a god?

SpecialFrog, your tendency to misrepresent what has been said, is obvious. While it might not be intentional, it is seriously annoying for me to have to have to constantly correct you.

Apart from (arguably) the above bit you have yet to correct me. Additionally, you have yet to demonstrate me misrepresenting you.

If you are actually trying to communicate with someone and you think they have misinterpreted what you said, you can explain what you actually mean as I did above rather than just saying, "I never said that!".

In fact, you have done this so often, in this thread and the other one, I don't really even longer care to discuss anything with you. It's that bad.

You can stop talking to me if you like but it won't make this statement true.

Put me in touch with God or provide me with some evidence of His existence.

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with God very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

In other words, no you don't have any evidence of God's existence. Also, since you say above that God hasn't talked to anyone since Biblical times (was John the Divine the last?) he clearly hasn't talked to you.

So your uncle analogy is still worthless.

 

[Visaki]

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with God very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

That is as absurd as telling me that I have to believe in the divinity of the Bible to interpret it "correctly". Actually, it's basically the same thing, and you got it all backwards. The talking to your God bit comes after you believe that he is real, not before.

P.S. Your God doesn't love me, he only hates me very, very much. Why I do not know since I haven't done anything to him.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Well, okay. Actually you can put yourself in touch with God very easily at anytime because He loves you very, very much. You could start by telling him that you are sorry for all of the bad things that you have done and you can ask Him to help you know that he is real.

That is as absurd as telling me that I have to believe in the divinity of the Bible to interpret it "correctly". Actually, it's basically the same thing, and you got it all backwards. The talking to your God bit comes after you believe that he is real, not before.

His claim also requires pretending that former Christians who did that were not doing to genuinely. However, since many former Christians thought they were genuinely "in touch" with God it implies that we have no way of determining whether this is genuine or not.

Which makes the whole exercise inherently unconvincing.