Jesus is a Myth!

[POI]

The Gospels are fiction and the Jesus character is a myth. There may have been a Jesus upon whom the character is based, but I doubt it.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2). I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's Asian churches were effectively unmoored and they absorbed a sort of second- or third-hand tradition left over from the Jerusalem church. That tradition was allegorically retold in the Synoptics. Acts is a sort of theological textbook, allegorically describing the fusion of the Pauline churches and what little remained of the Jerusalem church through the conflict between its Peter and Paul characters and the resoliution of that conflict.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity? If so, how do we know?

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

**************************************

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

[Clownboat]

Gish Gallop.

I acknowledge that it is too much information for you. Try reviewing it in shifts.

It was some theological differences between Paul and Jesus. You know, something you asked for.

Gish Gallop.

I acknowledge that it is too much information for you. Try reviewing it in shifts.

They don't require a response, just an acknowledgement that they exist and are real.

I understand that you'd prefer to just say stuff with impunity...and maybe it works from time to time, depending on who you are engaging.

The verses were supplied, so I'm not saying anything, just supplying the information.

But, when you engage me, nonsense gets exposed and put in check.

You have not been displaying this, but I hear you.

Oh, is that what it was?

It was hard to tell.

I couldn't make out much, considering all the Gish Gallop.

I acknowledge that it is too much information for you. Try reviewing it in shifts.

I supplied many and each one follows up with an explanation.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Eph 1:7 Paul says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Rom 4:25 Paul says: who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Matt 6:14-15 Jesus says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Paul says you need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to be redeemed (compensate for the faults). Jesus claims that if you forgive others, God will forgive you too.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Not what is being displayed.
Paul is saying forgiveness is through the blood of Jesus.
Jesus says that you need to forgive men and God will also forgive you.
Should we head Paul's theology or Jesus's in this scenario?

And I've spent countless hours raking up leaves as such.

If you spend more time debating, do you think you will improve to be as good at it as you are raking leaves?

Again, two things can be true at the same time.

I acknowledge this. Do you acknowledge the theological differences between Paul and Jesus that were supplied? You know, where one makes it all about blood and human sacrifice while the other mentions different ways to receive forgiveness and eternal life (to name a couple).

If you apply simple reading comprehension between the two, and you'll find there is no issue at all.

Let's test for that, shall we?
Rom 13:12 Paul says: the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Luke 21:8 Jesus Says: Take heed that you are not led astray, for many will come in my name saying, the time is at hand! Do not go after them.
Jesus even warned you about people like Paul! Paul, who never met Jesus, came in Jesus's name.

Above we have an example of a theological difference between Paul and Jesus for receiving forgiveness and also a seeming warning from Jesus about people like Paul that will come in his name.

Just skeptism at it finest...looking for something that isn't there.

That's why I supplied the Bible verses silly.

[SiNcE_1985]

10¹⁰¹²³ doesn't have anything to do with the fine tuning argument. That's why it's so funny.

Bro, I would love to have responded to the nonsense you are saying on the Jesus topic.

But after reading this^, I just can't take you serious.

I put in the Penrose equation in the YouTube search bar, and this is the first video.

Well, look at that...if it isn't Penrose himself, discussing fine tuning, with the equation.



See ya around, buddy.

[SiNcE_1985]

I acknowledge that it is too much information for you. Try reviewing it in shifts.

No need to.

The one you provided fell flat on its face...so no need to think the others won't share the same fate.

Actually, those are good to act as "problem solving" in a Christian Apologist learning workbook.

They are good for keeping an apologist's sword sharp, or for a Apologetics for Beginners course.



I'm laughing, but I'm serious.

If you spend more time debating, do you think you will improve to be as good at it as you are raking leaves?

I acknowledge this. Do you acknowledge the theological differences between Paul and Jesus that were supplied? You know, where one makes it all about blood and human sacrifice while the other mentions different ways to receive forgiveness and eternal life (to name a couple).

Kinda difficult to move forward to another one, until my dismantling of the prior one is acknowledged.

[Clownboat]

I acknowledge that it is too much information for you. Try reviewing it in shifts.

No need to.

The one you provided fell flat on its face...so no need to think the others won't share the same fate.

Actually, those are good to act as "problem solving" in a Christian Apologist learning workbook.

They are good for keeping an apologist's sword sharp, or for a Apologetics for Beginners course.



I'm laughing, but I'm serious.

If you spend more time debating, do you think you will improve to be as good at it as you are raking leaves?

I acknowledge this. Do you acknowledge the theological differences between Paul and Jesus that were supplied? You know, where one makes it all about blood and human sacrifice while the other mentions different ways to receive forgiveness and eternal life (to name a couple).

Kinda difficult to move forward to another one, until my dismantling of the prior one is acknowledged.

You would need to point to where you did the dismantling as I fail to see it?
When you said this: "The one you provided fell flat on its face". That is just a claim and nothing was dismantled.

Be well.

[SiNcE_1985]

You would need to point to where you did the dismantling as I fail to see it?

You don't see it, because you do not wish to see it.

When you said this: "The one you provided fell flat on its face". That is just a claim and nothing was dismantled.

Be well.

You literally responded to everything I said in the post, but the part where I addressed your concern.

And then you come on here talking about you failed to see it.



You ain't ready, bruh.

Here, hold this L.

[Difflugia]

10¹⁰¹²³ doesn't have anything to do with the fine tuning argument. That's why it's so funny.

Bro, I would love to have responded to the nonsense you are saying on the Jesus topic.

Of course. At your convenience.

But after reading this^, I just can't take you serious.

I put in the Penrose equation in the YouTube search bar, and this is the first video.

Well, look at that...if it isn't Penrose himself, discussing fine tuning, with the equation.

Weird that the first video is a short clip by a creationist quote mining out of a much longer lecture. In context, Penrose is making an analogy between his theory and the argument from fine tuning.

The fine tuning argument as such is that the universe was created out of many possible variations in a way that's specifically suitable for life. Penrose's argument isn't about the conditions being suitable for life, but about the conditions being suitable for a singularity, Big Bang, and expansion. It's a similar discussion, which is what he acknowledges in the mined quote, but is nonetheless a different discussion.

See ya around, buddy.

You might want to look twice. It might be someone that just kind of looks like me. Creationists sometimes can't tell the difference.

[POI]

Um, first of all, I agree; this isn't a popularity contest.

Then stop arguing for one. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Please respond to what I actually wrote in post 190.

But since you're the one touting all the evidence for Caesar, and emphazing how much impact he had, then I'm only countering it with how much my guy (Jesus), with less evidence, had even more of an impact.

My argument is about the likelihood of existence. Based upon my (4) points in post 154, as well as the rest of the historical method, the likelihood J. Caesar exists far outweighs the likelihood of a Jesus.

No other human being, fictional or otherwise, has had more of a global impact as a whole, and on single, individual lives; than Jesus of Nazareth (who is called Christ). No one. Period. Literally, every single second of the day, Jesus is on someone's mind. No one, living or dead, can hold a candle to Jesus of Nazareth. The greatest man born of a woman, John the Baptist (Matt 11:11), stated that he isn't worthy to even untie Jesus' sandals (Luke 3:16). John the Baptist baptized Jesus, but John said that Jesus should be the one baptizing him!! (Matt 3:13-17). Put some respect on Jesus' name (I say so humbly, with love).

Absolutely irrelevant to my argument...

Those odds are shaky.

More handwaving will not make the problem go away. Based upon the historical method given in post 154, the hierarchy of probability that such folks really existed are as follows:

Lincoln > Caesar > Alexander > Jesus

Couple the much lower odds of a Jesus actually existing with all the other findings in which also do not jive with later discovered reality, and you have a recipe for disaster. Which is why believers rely upon 1) faith, 2) science denial, 3) Christian apologetics -- (or flat out lying), and 4) fallacious reasoning.

I was talking about Jesus' biographies; the Gospels...which even according to you, were written only decades later, after his death.

If Jesus wanted his word(s) preserved in truth, he would not leave it to fallible humans to write it down and not really preserve it later. Being he did not bother to do either is just another indicator that maybe a Jesus never really existed at all????

If 400 years after person X's death can still be considered credible, then decades after person Y's death should be considered even more credible.

If all we had was X, then you'd be on to something about Alexander. Again, let's harken back to post 154.

Well, saying the Gospels are not trustworthy is your opinion. I'd ask for evidence, but all you want to do is request videos to watch, which I can just as easily do as well..to support my side of things.

The video is all I needed. You handwaved it. Spoiler alert... The video objectively demonstrates that 'Luke' is nothing more than the 'alternative facts' Gospel, when compared to Mark. Too many examples are sighted. Which makes it easy to just watch it.

Heyyy, what's up, Genetic Fallacy? It's been a couple weeks since I've seen you. How have you been? Oh, I get it..you only come around when POI needs help. I get it.

This is more demonstrated dishonesty Venom. You chopped the most important part of my statement. Which is that you apply your indoctrinated belief preservation to an illogical religion.

Broo, that's the point!!! Luke (the alleged author), is being genuine and sincere, by blatantly insinuating that he ISN'T/WASN'T an eyewitness.

Hey, we agree here. 'Luke" wasn't an eyewitness.

That in itself (in my opinion, obviously, yours differ), is part of what gives credence to the entire book.

Nope. No credence. Even con men tell some truths. See below...

1. There were eyewitnesses (many), which obviously presupposes that there was someone (and others, plural) to bear witness, and some thing to bear witnessed of.

A) Since we do not know who 'Luke' really was, and B) since this was written way later, and since C) these publication were not considered authoritative until way later ---- there is really no way for any of these alleged folks to have validated and/or corroborated anything which 'Luke' stated.

2. This was his orderly account, distinguishing his account from other orderly accounts (he said that "I, too, am giving an orderly".

A variation was taken from a post from Benchwarmer:

Which one of the (4) options do 'Luke" mirror? Hint hint... the correct answer is in red. And option (4) is what the believer should find, but doesn't.

1) If Luke copied Mark word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

2) If some was copied word for word, but the rest changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

3) Luke did not copy, word for word, any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

You claim that Julius Caesar left his own writings.

Ok, well, I can ask..

Me: How do you know HE actually wrote it?

You: Because, he said in the annals (or whatever it is) "I, Julius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, wrote this".

Me: Well, how do you know he even wrote that? Anyone could have written that, and portrayed it as him.

Jesus never even claimed to write his own stuff. If he did, then we would be having a completely different conversation.

I do..because it is glaringly obvious...and whoever corrupted it needs to be slapped because it was just fine without it.

The "golden paragraph" of Josephus, officially known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is considered a forgery due to Christian-specific language that is uncharacteristic of Josephus's work and an abrupt tonal shift that disrupts the flow of the text. The paragraph's enthusiastic claims that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and his resurrection are widely seen as interpolations added by later Christian scribes to make Josephus's writings more favorable to Christianity.

This is just another shining example of early Christian apologists lying for their cause.

Well, as I always say.. Either you believe it, or you don't. I can certainly understand how it can seem far-fetched to an unbeliever. But to a believer, it is everything. Just the tale of two different paths.

Yes, two different paths...

If we know the degree of probability is much lower for a claimed Jesus, when compared with the other aforementioned figures from ancient antiquity, at what percentage level do you just assume that maybe the character night be one from myth?.?.?.?.

This is a strawman, and much more...because skeptics like throwing the "Paul never met / didn't know Jesus" thing around...but..

1. We don't know if Paul ever met and/or seen Jesus despite his lack of confirming whether he did/didn't in his written work.

So anyone making such a statement is committing the arguing from silence fallacy...which is what your doing.

2. No is claiming that Paul met Jesus anyway...as our argument works fine even without the claim.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. The onus is on you to support the claim that Paul ever saw or met a living Jesus.
2. In this context- (where we are attempting to vet out whether or not a Jesus really existed), Paul cannot logically be seen as a contemporary if he never met or saw him while Jesus was allegedly alive.

I am of the opinion that Paul never met Jesus formally, but he did see him in person. This is an opinion, but I'm not making any argument off this opinion and I would encourage you to do the same on the flip side.

This is called wishful thinking. You need this wishful thinking because many of the hopes to Christianity directly ride upon Paul himself. Without his "testimony", almost half the NT does not exist. And since we are discussing/exploring whether or not a Jesus really existed, you (really really really) hope that Paul saw or met him. But of course, you cannot substantiate this in any logical capacity.

Third, all evidence shows that Paul was contemporary to the times, area, culture, and religion...he would know, and was in a position to know, whether the protagonist of the religion (Jesus) was a myth or not.

When comparing an actual contemporary between (Caesar and Jesus), we actually have one for Caesar, but not Jesus.

Fourth, it's funny, because what you guys are claiming about Tacitus and Josephus (not being contemporary to Jesus), does not apply to Paul, and that STILL isn't good enough for you guys.

These historians wrote about what earlier folks believed. I already expressed the 'golden paragraph' above. This is an example of later believers adding lies.

So again, nothing is ever good enough...a skeptic can/will always find something.

So, it all goes back to...either you believe it, or you don't.

Correction... The standard for belief has to remain really low for a Jesus. But ironically, likely MUCH higher for other asserted god(s).

Scholars date Paul's conversion to between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. That's makes him contemporary to Jesus.

Again, when comparing Caesar to Jesus, you have absolutely no case here.

Your definition of "prosper" differs from mine.

The bottom line is that if 'Rome' did not ordain this specific collection of unsubstantiated belief(s). you likely would not be here illogically fighting for it.

Oh, care to share examples?

'Movements' come in all sorts of forms:

Amazon: Named after the fierce female warriors of Greek myth.
Nike: Named after the goddess of victory.
Pandora: A jewelry brand named after the first mortal woman in Greek mythology.
Hermès: A luxury goods company named after the messenger of the gods.
Olympus: A brand of cameras named after the home of the Greek gods.
Dove: A personal care brand named after the symbol of Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty.
Cereal: The generic name for breakfast cereal comes from Ceres, the Roman goddess of grain.

[SiNcE_1985]

Then stop arguing for one. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Please respond to what I actually wrote in post 190.

You started the popularity stuff, and I finished it.

My argument is about the likelihood of existence. Based upon my (4) points in post 154, as well as the rest of the historical method, the likelihood J. Caesar exists far outweighs the likelihood of a Jesus.

I agree, the evidence for Caesar outweighs the evidence for Jesus.

It means absolutely nothing tho...considering the aftermath of what happened once both departed this earth.

When it comes to the impact/aftermath, it's not even close...in fact, offensive in comparison.

Absolutely irrelevant to my argument...

If I say it, it's relevant.

More handwaving will not make the problem go away. Based upon the historical method given in post 154, the hierarchy of probability that such folks really existed are as follows:

Lincoln > Caesar > Alexander > Jesus

Couple the much lower odds of a Jesus actually existing with all the other findings in which also do not jive with later discovered reality, and you have a recipe for disaster. Which is why believers rely upon 1) faith, 2) science denial, 3) Christian apologetics -- (or flat out lying), and 4) fallacious reasoning.

Obviously, we should expect more evidence supporting the existence of Presidents of countries (Lincoln), and kings and emperors of empires (AtG, Caesar).

You aren't pulling some rabbit out of the hat by drawing that conclusion.

If Jesus wanted his word(s) preserved in truth, he would not leave it to fallible humans to write it down

Nah.

Even if he wrote it himself, 2,000 years later, non scholarly skeptics on Internet message forums would still move the goalposts by asking "How do we know he actually wrote it".

Nothing can be ever good enough for super-skeptics; they complain about what we don't have or what we should have, when, even if we had it that way, they would be complaining about that way and asking why it isn't another way.

We (Jesus included) ain't interested in cat & mouse games.

We have what we have.

Either you believe it, or you don't

and not really preserve it later.

Please, tell me how the Bible hasn't been preserved?

Being he did not bother to do either is just another indicator that maybe a Jesus never really existed at all????

1. He should have written it down.

2. He didn't write it down.

3. Therefore, he didn't exist.

Fallacious reasoning.

If all we had was X, then you'd be on to something about Alexander. Again, let's harken back to post 154.

You go back. I'm staying here.

The video is all I needed. You handwaved it. Spoiler alert... The video objectively demonstrates that 'Luke' is nothing more than the 'alternative facts' Gospel, when compared to Mark. Too many examples are sighted. Which makes it easy to just watch it.

Ok, I watched the video...and I'm convinced!!! The Bible is not true, and Jesus never existed.

Wow, who would have ever thought that a YouTube video would be the end-all-be-all to knowledge and discovery.

I don't need to look any further..the YouTube video convinced me!!

Yeah, right.

Moving along.

This is more demonstrated dishonesty Venom. You chopped the most important part of my statement. Which is that you apply your indoctrinated belief preservation to an illogical religion.

Um, no I didn't chop it up.

Once I see the word "indoctrinated", it's wrap.

Incoming Genetic Fallacy from that point on.

Hey, we agree here. 'Luke" wasn't an eyewitness.

That was never the claim in the first place.

So you are belabouring a point that was never made.

Nope. No credence. Even con men tell some truths. See below...

Well, I'm gladly conned then.

A) Since we do not know who 'Luke' really was

, and B) since this was written way later, and since C) these publication were not considered authoritative until way later ---- there is really no way for any of these alleged folks to have validated and/or corroborated anything which 'Luke' stated.

Again, if we knew who Luke was and it was written two months after the Resurrection, you wouldn't be a believer.

So, it doesn't matter what we have.

We have what we have, and either you believe it, or you don't.

You don't. We do.

And I say all that while completely disagreeing with everything you said.

A variation was taken from a post from Benchwarmer:

Which one of the (4) options do 'Luke" mirror? Hint hint... the correct answer is in red. And option (4) is what the believer should find, but doesn't.

1) If Luke copied Mark word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

Luke has information in his book that Mark doesn't have... namely, the census that took place during Jesus' birth and the temptation of Jesus.

And he has an additional 8 chapters over Mark..and it is the difference that would obviously make his book unique.

It is a classic example of, "the same, yet different".

So, stop it.

2) If some was copied word for word, but the rest changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

I simply disagree. Provide specifics.

3) Luke did not copy, word for word, any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

You are reaching. Obviously, both books are from the same source...or one borrowed from the other while putting his own spin on it

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

This is your skeptical opinion and one of which I do not share.

I need specifics, not generalities.

Jesus never even claimed to write his own stuff. If he did, then we would be having a completely different conversation.

Oh, was Jesus supposed to write his autobiography before his Resurrection, or after?

And yeah, it would be a different conversation...the skeptical marker would simply be placed elsewhere, instead of where it currently is.

Just like with Diff..

Diff: Paul never mentioned an earthly Jesus.

Me: But he did. He mentioned it here. 1Corin 11

Diff: *Wow, I never knew about that*, well, he may have mentioned it, but, it's allegory.

First, the claim was Paul didn't mention it at all.

Then once he find out he was wrong, he moved the goalposts...now it is an "allegory" claim.

We have what we have. Either you believe it, or you don't.

The "golden paragraph" of Josephus, officially known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is considered a forgery due to Christian-specific language that is uncharacteristic of Josephus's work and an abrupt tonal shift that disrupts the flow of the text. The paragraph's enthusiastic claims that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and his resurrection are widely seen as interpolations added by later Christian scribes to make Josephus's writings more favorable to Christianity.

Look, I already agreed/acknowledged that it was an interpolation...so there was no need for you to run wild with it by trying to tout your knowledge of the situation. It wasn't necessary.

You could have directed that unnecessary energy towards telling me which country that you live in, where Christianity is the dominant religion, as you stated..because that question remains unanswered.

I'm still trying to figure out why you have this compulsion to go day by day, habitually involving yourself in Christian concerns...as an unbeliever who claims Jesus is a myth.

This is just another shining example of early Christian apologists lying for their cause.

Yeah, shame on that Christian apologist.

Yes, two different paths...
If we know the degree of probability is much lower for a claimed Jesus, when compared with the other aforementioned figures from ancient antiquity, at what percentage level do you just assume that maybe the character night be one from myth?.?.?.?.

I disagree with your claim that we know the degree probability.

Jesus existed, that's all I care to know.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. The onus is on you to support the claim that Paul ever saw or met a living Jesus.

Yeah, just like the onus is/was on YOU to support the claim that Jesus is myth, which is the title of your beloved thread.

You've yet to do so...because you simply can't.

Second, you are wrong...the onus isn't on me to support the claim about Paul seeing or meeting Jesus, because I never made the claim that he did.

You claimed that he didn't, so the onus is on you to support that claim.

But, you obviously can't support it..in the same way you can't support the claim that Jesus is a myth.

So, as I accused you before and I'll do it again; you are committing the argument from silence fallacy.

This is just another prime example of an skeptic running around making unproven claims, while at the same time demanding that their interlocutor prove their own claims.

I was just told to prove a claim that I didn't even make lol.

It blows my mind.

2. In this context- (where we are attempting to vet out whether or not a Jesus really existed), Paul cannot logically be seen as a contemporary if he never met or saw him while Jesus was allegedly alive.

Well, too bad that's not the definition of contemporary.

Look up the word, and then get back to me.

This is called wishful thinking. You need this wishful thinking because many of the hopes to Christianity directly ride upon Paul himself. Without his "testimony", almost half the NT does not exist.
And since we are discussing/exploring whether or not a Jesus really existed, you (really really really) hope that Paul saw or met him. But of course, you cannot substantiate this in any logical capacity.

Wishful thinking? Whether or not Paul met or saw Jesus while he was alive, ain't even my argument lol.

When comparing an actual contemporary between (Caesar and Jesus), we actually have one for Caesar, but not Jesus.

Only one is required, and we have that with Jesus; Paul.

These historians wrote about what earlier folks believed.

Um, no. Nothing in the context of those writings says anything about "this is what earlier folks believed".

They wrote what they wrote as statements of facts.

I already expressed the 'golden paragraph' above. This is an example of later believers adding lies.

I agree, lies don't need to be added... especially when the truth works so much better.

Correction... The standard for belief has to remain really low for a Jesus. But ironically, likely MUCH higher for other asserted god(s).

Look at that. The mere mention of Jesus makes people so uncomfortable lol.

I can see the discomfort, all in your text.

Again, when comparing Caesar to Jesus, you have absolutely no case here.

There is only one JC that has had a global impact for billions of people, 2000 years after his death.

And that JC ain't Julius Caesar.

The bottom line is that if 'Rome' did not ordain this specific collection of unsubstantiated belief(s). you likely would not be here illogically fighting for it.

Christianity had already spread through the Roman empire and reached the highest office in the land by the 60's CE.

It was already poppin, 3 centuries before Constantine.

Apparently, someone doesn't know their history.

'Movements' come in all sorts of forms:

Amazon: Named after the fierce female warriors of Greek myth.
Nike: Named after the goddess of victory.
Pandora: A jewelry brand named after the first mortal woman in Greek mythology.
Hermès: A luxury goods company named after the messenger of the gods.
Olympus: A brand of cameras named after the home of the Greek gods.
Dove: A personal care brand named after the symbol of Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty.
Cereal: The generic name for breakfast cereal comes from Ceres, the Roman goddess of grain.

Comparing Christianity, the biggest religious movement known to man...to movements that no one knows, or cares about.

Laughable.

[SiNcE_1985]

Weird that the first video is a short clip by a creationist quote mining out of a much longer lecture. In context, Penrose is making an analogy between his theory and the argument from fine tuning.

Nonsense.

Any time the equation is used, it is within the context of fine tuning.

The equation is precise, and it doesn't apply to anything else.

The fine tuning argument as such is that the universe was created out of many possible variations in a way that's specifically suitable for life.

Yeah, and who was that that said it had nothing to do with life compatibility.

Was that you, or POI?

Penrose's argument isn't about the conditions being suitable for life, but about the conditions being suitable for a singularity, Big Bang, and expansion. It's a similar discussion, which is what he acknowledges in the mined quote, but is nonetheless a different discussion.

Um, no. The singularity itself (initial conditions) had to be fine tuned. That's what he's saying.

It was fine tuned from the very beginning...the problem is (on naturalism); you guys can't appeal to any naturalistic mechanism or entity to set those parameters in place...not that early in the game.

No.

Something (someone) outside it, had to set those dials in place from the onset.

[Difflugia]

Weird that the first video is a short clip by a creationist quote mining out of a much longer lecture. In context, Penrose is making an analogy between his theory and the argument from fine tuning.

Nonsense.

ikr? Those kooky creationists.

Any time the equation is used, it is within the context of fine tuning.

Only if one broadens the concept of "fine tuning" wider than the actual creationist argument. It's sort of like how creationists have started piling more and more under the umbrella of Intelligent Design.

The equation is precise, and it doesn't apply to anything else.

That's exactly right. If you want to broaden the concept of fine tuning, that's fine. You've been fuzzy on what the arguments actually are for years and I've no reason to think you'll stop now. I'll keep pointing it out, though.

Now, do you think you can take me serious [sic] long enough to talk about the mythical Jesus?