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

[Difflugia]

Although we went off key on the piano, this tune is all about Jesus.

So, your next post, then?

[SiNcE_1985]

I acknowledge that if Jesus, the claimed son of a God were to have written his teachings down for us, that we would not be able to distinguish the words of this demigod from those of normal humans.

Opinions.

Now why do you think Jesus would not be able to preserve his message for all of humanity better than mere humans?

This is a loaded question, and fallacious.

I reject the premise.

Final question. Do you think that it is logical for an all powerful God to have a message written for all of humanity, but then require pastors, priest, theologians and random internet posters to then in interpret the said message?

Not all pastors are called by God to interpret the message.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #227]

Somewhat of a recap:

- While applying the historical method, noted in post(s) 154/190, it is quite generous to grant the existence of a Jesus as a 50/50 proposition.

- The number of believers has no bearing on if the claim(s) <is/are> true.

- How fast a storyline spreads have no bearing on if the claim(s) <is/are> true.

- Besides the untrustworthy Gospels, as well as someone who likely never met a living Jesus (Paul), how might we actually know if a Jesus really existed?

- If your standards were consistent, you would have to acknowledge the true existence of the 'golden plates', (which would more-so verify further revelation from God), above and beyond acknowledging the existence of a Jesus and his supposed resurrection. Why? We have many more corroborated eyewitnesses for "the plates" above and beyond a "Jesus" who also was said to have "risen".

- Please stop accusing me of being hyper skeptical to this particular collection of far-fetched claims, when I reject or apply skepticism to all far-fetched claims pretty equally. You are also the pot calling the kettle black, as you are only hyper skeptical to any theoretical science(s) which do not align with the claim(s) of your indoctrinated holy book. As demonstrated prior, you are also hyper skeptical to Mormonism - (even though it offers more corroborated eyewitness attestation verses a Jesus).

- If adhering to scholarly consensus is the route you wish to proceed, then yes, you've got me, in that Jesus might have existed. HOWEVER, Christianity is false, as 'the Exodus' is not accepted to have actually happened when addressing scholarly consensus. -- Please read what I stated in the OP.

- We have no idea how many Christians Nero persecuted. And even if we did, this still has absolutely no bearing on the truthiness of the claim(s) for a Jesus.

- Being Jesus was here to spread the "word", seems quite odd he bothered not to do it himself in writing and/or actually preserve it. He instead left it in the hands of fallible humans. Had he done both, then yes, it would be quite nonsensical to hold a mythicist position for his existence.

I'll stop here....

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #232]

All handwaving and false rubberstamping....

[SiNcE_1985]

It is widely accepted, among "biblical scholars", that Paul the Apostle never met Jesus during Jesus's earthly lifetime and public ministry.

And despite this widely accepted view among 'biblical scholars', that doesn't stop them from believing in the existence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

So, one doesn't negate the other...so your insistence on making this point, simply fails once actual scholarship is considered.

In a nutshell, based on both our points..

Your point: Scholarship doesn't support the notion that Jesus met or saw Jesus.

However..

My point: But despite this, scholarship supports the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

So, if we're dealing with actual scholarship, then this thread has no merit whatsoever.

The primary reasons for this conclusion are drawn from both Paul's own writings and the narrative in the Book of Acts.

Argument from Silence.

Below are more reasons Paul likely never saw or met a living Jesus:

A) Geographical and Temporal Separation --- While Paul (formerly Saul) and Jesus were "contemporaries"

Oh, so you now admit that Paul and Jesus were contemporaries, despite trying to argue me down otherwise for the past few post/pages.

A crying shame.

Here, hold this L.

, Paul likely lived in Tarsus, Cilicia (modern-day Turkey), which is about 400 miles from Jerusalem, during Jesus's ministry years.

Cool theory, but speculative.

It is called, "travel".

The New Testament does not place Paul in Judea during the specific time of Jesus's public life and crucifixion.

Argument from Silence (AFS).

The New Testament doesn't place Paul outside of Judea, either.

B) Paul's Own letter(s) states that he received his Gospel by direct "revelation of Jesus Christ," not from other people who had known Jesus personally.

Well, according to Christianity, there isn't a better source to receive a revelation from.

You're saying a whole lotta nothing here.

He was an independent apostle, specifically called by the resurrected Christ. He even mentions in Galatians 1:16-19 that after his conversion, he did not immediately consult with the other apostles in Jerusalem, several years later.

Which has nothing to do with whether he met or saw Jesus.

Yet again, the entire focus of this debate is to establish if a Jesus existed? Many people were alive during this so-called Jesus. However, it would appear that Paul never saw or met him. Which then makes him no different than the millions of other folks who certainly never met him, while being 'contemporaries' -- as they lived at the same time.

I fail to see the point.

Maybe because there was none.

Venom. I've repeatedly asked you a question. Since Jesus is the focus of his writings, why did Paul never mention seeing or meeting an alive Jesus? I'll answer for you. It's because Paul was hundreds of miles away, when Jesus was alive.

Ok. Paul never met or saw Jesus.

Moving along.

We don't have anything remotely close to that because Paul never saw or met a living Jesus -- (see above). If you are insinuating that he might have anyways, the onus is ON YOU to demonstrate how this would have been possible. So far, all you have done is yet another handwave, and also apply another misplaced rubberstamp.

Again, Paul never met Jesus.

Moving along.

I was crystal clear in my positions of being 50/50 in posts 154 and 190. Please stop misrepresenting me.

When you argue against a position, that is not 50/50.

But what it is; is fake, phony modesty.

Great. Then scholarship states Paul never saw or met a living Jesus. Hence, Paul cannot logically be used to support the claim of a living Jesus.

That is your erroneous, unscholarly opinion.

You're entitled to it.

However, I'll stick with the scholarly consensus...that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Aside from the claim(s) from the untrustworthy Gospels, how do we know a Jesus really existed?

I already answered this.

An even more minority scholarly position is that Paul actually saw or met a living Jesus.

They don't base Paul's credibility on whether he saw or met Jesus.

This is you, again, having your cake and eating it too. You cannot appeal to scholarly consensus only when it suits you.

Um, I'm appealing to scholarly consensus on the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth existed.

That's what the thread is asking.

This is my point Venom. Pick a lane and stay in it. If you want to appeal to scholarly consensus, then I can end Christianity really fast.

Go ahead. End Christianity fast.

More misplaced rubberstamping. Someone from Caesar's army, who fought with him, wrote about him. Paul, on the other hand, was nowhere near a living Jesus.

Opinions.

If you were writing about the most important figure in human history, would you omit ever seeing or meeting him out and about (anywhere)? You wouldn't have a signed autograph of him, other?

If Jesus never existed, why would Paul write about him, PERIOD?

That's not where I'm trying to go with this.

That may not be where you want to go, but that's where you landed.

Perhaps you should be careful of what you say.

I'm going after the obvious special pleading to come... If we want to verify the existence of someone from ancient antiquity, and we LACK almost all other needed credentials, when applying the historical method, as I expressed in post 154, then hearsay and secondhand accounts alone suffice here?.?.?.? Remember, we both agree there is clearly more evidence for Caesar's existence than with Jesus.

The scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed.

It is etched in stone.

Again, I understand that such an existence makes you uncomfortable, because this fact may bring forth other realties that you'd rather not deal with.

But, I cant help you here.

Hahaha! then I guess postmortem Elvis sightings are also legit?

Is there an empty tomb, empty grave, or empty casket of Elvis?

No?

Next..

No Venom. These claims originate from the Gospels, and the Gospels are wacked.

Paul's epistles predate the Gospels.

You can start by comparing Mark to Luke.

Let me guess, something about a video.

For which I then asked, how many irreconcilable inconsistencies must one encounter before you just chuck the 'source(s)'? One, five, ten, more?

I'll let you know, when I see them.

Another handwave.... Nero persecuted any deemed threat, big or small. And the 'threat' from Christianity was not specified in size.

Tacitus stated that Nero persecuted Christians.

Period.

You have no basis to state it was 'popping' when we don't even have any definitive number(s) to verify.

Do you have definitive numbers on how many Christians there were, during your beloved Constantine's reign?

Yes, it did. My point here is that you would be badly arguing for any illogical religion for which you were indoctrinated within. If it was Hinduism, you've likely be a Hindu right now. Maybe just a slightly different flavor from your parents.... You see Venom, all religions have their crappy apologetics. Where I live, I have the pleasure of arguing against the bad apologetics of Christians. If I instead lived in India, it would be different.

Genetic Fallacy.

[OneJack]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #235]

So, if we're dealing with actual scholarship, then this thread has no merit whatsoever.

What merit is in store for a) one whose belief, and b) for a thread whose premise is totally in paradox to what exists in reality, which is, the Lord Jesus, though not seen yet, is the Lord God, who is always beside everybody on a 24/7 watch mode without winking His eyes. All we need to do to be able to talk and listen to Him is to come to and call upon Him in the right way. The Lord compares this kind of wisdom to - NOTHING - as if it were a totally blank page of a book.

Thus saith the Lord God Jesus Christ:

Some people who witness God performing miracles will only believe if those miracles happen to them. Others will say the person testifying to the miracles God has performed in his life is crazy. So, you who are doubting, if I am in your heart, if you have accepted Me as the Almighty God, you no longer have anything to doubt.

[POI]

My point: But despite this, scholarship supports the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So, if we're dealing with actual scholarship, then this thread has no merit whatsoever.

If this is the position you wish to take, then you are going to have a very bad time moving forward; as applying THIS standard will quickly render Christianity kaput.

Oh, so you now admit that Paul and Jesus were contemporaries, despite trying to argue me down otherwise for the past few post/pages.

Nope. This is you continually having reading comprehension issues. I've explained ad nauseam, and you continue to step all over yourself. Yet again, just because they both supposedly lived at the same time, means nothing. It's pretty obvious they never met or saw each other.

It is called, "travel".

More apologetic wishful thinking.

Argument from Silence (AFS). The New Testament doesn't place Paul outside of Judea, either.

More handwaving...

I fail to see the point.

Yes, you do this quite often. I've explained above, and prior.

Ok. Paul never met or saw Jesus. Moving along.

When you argue against a position, that is not 50/50.

I'm merely addressing the 50% against the claim of an actual living Jesus. I'm also being quite generous in granting 50% to the theist's side that he really existed.

But what it is; is fake, phony modesty.

Speaking of "fake/phony", who's the one who broke the forum rules and weaseled back on here again?

I'll stick with the scholarly consensus....

Only when it is convenient, I'm sure.

Opinions.

More handwaving...

If Jesus never existed, why would Paul write about him, PERIOD?

He had a "vision". Just like countless people have 'visions' of people they never met while claimed to be alive.

That may not be where you want to go, but that's where you landed. Perhaps you should be careful of what you say.

Perhaps you should learn to read what I actually say and also further (follow up/clarify) for you. The argument quickly exposes special pleading, and I also clearly explained why.

The scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed.

You are quickly digging your own proverbial grave here. Which is why you will have no choice but to pivot.

Again, I understand that such an existence makes you uncomfortable, because this fact may bring forth other realties that you'd rather not deal with. But, I cant help you here.

LOL!. You clearly have low levels of reading comprehension (or) bad memory retention. Please re-read the OP -- if it should turn out a Jesus did exist, it matters quite little. However, if it instead turns out he didn't, game immediately over. Meaning, the stakes are quite low for the skeptic, as there is still quite plenty to discount this collection of beliefs.

Is there an empty tomb, empty grave, or empty casket?

Based upon the untrustworthy Gospels? .

Paul's epistles predate the Gospels.

You already conceded that Paul never met a Jesus. And this topic is to validate an actual living Jesus.

Let me guess, something about a video.

I don't need to guess. More handwaving...

I'll let you know, when I see them.

Why do believers have such a hard time answering legitimate hypothetical questions? Case/point, if I were to ask you, on a sunny summer day, if it was to rain right now, do you expect the ground to get wet? The easy answer is "yes".

Again, HOW MANY irreconcilable inconsistencies would you need to encounter before you ditched the source? 1, 3, 5, other?

Tacitus stated that Nero persecuted Christians. Period.

Another nothingburger response... You stated Christianity was "poppin" and used this garbage example. And now that you have again been owned, you are back peddling.

Do you have definitive numbers on how many Christians there were, during your beloved Constantine's reign?

We already agree it was 'poppin' after Constantine. After Constantine, Christianity grew rapidly, with some estimates claiming it accounted for 50% of the Roman Empire's population by the end of the 4th century and over 30 million people.

[SiNcE_1985]

If this is the position you wish to take, then you are going to have a very bad time moving forward; as applying THIS standard will quickly render Christianity kaput.

Say what you got to say, bruh.

Spare me of the cliffhangers.

Nope. This is you continually having reading comprehension issues. I've explained ad nauseam, and you continue to step all over yourself. Yet again, just because they both supposedly lived at the same time, means nothing.

Um, no.

According to the definition you provided; to be contemporary, all you need to do is live during the same time as event X, or person Y.

Paul lived during the time of Jesus, therefore, he was contemporary to Jesus.

Point blank, period.

So, you were wrong here, as usual.

It's pretty obvious they never met or saw each other.

Why? Because Paul never mentioned it?

Argument from Silence.

More apologetic wishful thinking.

Um, how else would he get there, if he didn't travel?

More handwaving...

Um, no.

If I cant make the argument that Paul met/saw Jesus, on the mere basis that the New Testament doesn't say that he didn't..

Then you can't make the argument that he never/met Jesus, on the mere basis that the NT doesn't say that he did.

Now, how you love that?

I'm merely addressing the 50% against the claim of an actual living Jesus. I'm also being quite generous in granting 50% to the theist's side that he really existed.

Well, merely address the 50% for the claim of an actual living Jesus...since you're so agnostic about the situation.

You wouldn't dare do that, though.

Speaking of "fake/phony", who's the one who broke the forum rules and weaseled back on here again?

I was dead.

And I Resurrected.

Just like...

Only when it is convenient, I'm sure.

Um, no.

Because I'm cool with the scholarly consensus that Paul never met Jesus..when it is better for my position that he did.

So no, you can't use that one.

He had a "vision". Just like countless people have 'visions' of people they never met while claimed to be alive.

That doesn't explain the empty tomb, and the believed physical appearances of Jesus from others.

Perhaps you should learn to read what I actually say and also further (follow up/clarify) for you. The argument quickly exposes special pleading, and I also clearly explained why.

Yeah, ok.

You are quickly digging your own proverbial grave here. Which is why you will have no choice but to pivot.

Yeah, I'm pivoting right back to the subject at hand, which is the question of whether Jesus or Nazareth actually existed, or is he a myth.

The scholarly consensus is that he existed.

That is what scholars, many of whom aren't even Christian, believe according to the historical evidence.

That is what I pivoted to.

So, this entire thread is hogwash in the face of actual scholarship.

LOL!. You clearly have low levels of reading comprehension (or) bad memory retention. Please re-read the OP -- if it should turn out a Jesus did exist, it matters quite little.

It matters quite a lot.

If Jesus (the man) existed, that is too close to home to Jesus (the risen Messiah), existing.

So, you'd rather not have him existed at all...no man = no risen Messiah.

The subject of Jesus makes people uncomfortable.

Jesus' mere presence while in the midst of demon possessed people....his presence alone made the demons shudder.

However, if it instead turns out he didn't, game immediately over.

Yeah, just like if abiogenesis is impossible, then game immediately over for evolutionists.

Tell me something I don't know.

Based upon the untrustworthy Gospels? .

Please answer the question..

Did any Elvis "sighting" stories ever come with an empty tomb, casket, or grave narrative?

Yes or no.

You already conceded that Paul never met a Jesus. And this topic is to validate an actual living Jesus.

I conceded it to move on.

Why do believers have such a hard time answering legitimate hypothetical questions? Case/point, if I were to ask you, on a sunny summer day, if it was to rain right now, do you expect the ground to get wet? The easy answer is "yes". Again, HOW MANY irreconcilable inconsistencies would you need to encounter before you ditched the source? 1, 3, 5, other?

Um, I reject your premise that there are consistencies in Mark-Luke...and I simply told you that if I see them, I'll let you know.

Not sure what the issue is here.

Another nothingburger response... You stated Christianity was "poppin" and used this garbage example. And now that you have again been owned, you are back peddling.

Then you and I have differing views on what it means to be "poppin".

We already agree it was 'poppin' after Constantine. After Constantine, Christianity grew rapidly, with some estimates claiming it accounted for 50% of the Roman Empire's population by the end of the 4th century and over 30 million people.

If Constantine converted to Christianity, then obviously he had to be influenced by an already poppin religion.

That's the point.

All Constantine did was allow for religious freedom and stopped the Christian persucution (which is commendable).

He didn't pass a law stating that every Roman citizen must follow Christianity...if he did that, then you'd have a point...but he didn't do that.

You have to prove that people's conversion to Christianity during his reign was a direct result of his actions, which you can't.

[POI]

Say what you got to say, bruh.

I'm going to soon enough. And when I do, you will pivot harder than the best speed skater.

Um, no. According to the definition you provided; to be contemporary, all you need to do is live during the same time as event X, or person Y. Paul lived during the time of Jesus, therefore, he was contemporary to Jesus. Point blank, period. So, you were wrong here, as usual.

Dude, I've explained multiple times. I even used the word 'contemporary' in quotes. Please stop committing the exact word fallacy. The objective is to verify writer(s) who actually saw or met a living Jesus. And according to YOU, you are "cool with the scholarly consensus" that he didn't. Since Paul certainly logically could not have been in two places at once, Paul never saw or met a claimed living Jesus.

Why? Because Paul never mentioned it?

Nope. Because you have planted your flag and are rocking with scholarly consensus. Which means Paul never saw or met a living Jesus.

Um, how else would he get there, if he didn't travel?

Scholarly consensus says otherwise. Sorry, you are applying wishful thinking,

Um, no. If I cant make the argument that Paul met/saw Jesus, on the mere basis that the New Testament doesn't say that he didn't.. Then you can't make the argument that he never/met Jesus, on the mere basis that the NT doesn't say that he did. Now, how you love that?

Um, yes. Using your standard, Paul never saw or met a living Jesus. Why? See your standard in bold above.

Well, merely address the 50% for the claim of an actual living Jesus...since you're so agnostic about the situation. You wouldn't dare do that, though.

I already did that though. Aside from the (4) untrustworthy Gospels, Paul's writings, Josephus -- (where a verified forged paragraph exists), and another historian who reported what earlier people believed, what else do we actually have to verify a living Jesus? As I stated prior, I'm granting a major gift to apply the above as being 50% in favor of a living Jesus.

I was dead. And I Resurrected. Just like...

This is why other interlocutors do not take your responses seriously. You have proven to be dishonest, fake, and phony.

Um, no. Because I'm cool with the scholarly consensus that Paul never met Jesus..when it is better for my position that he did. So no, you can't use that one.

Um, yes. See my responses above.

That doesn't explain the empty tomb, and the believed physical appearances of Jesus from others.

Per the untrustworthy Gospels.

Yeah, I'm pivoting right back to the subject at hand, which is the question of whether Jesus or Nazareth actually existed, or is he a myth. The scholarly consensus is that he existed. That is what scholars, many of whom aren't even Christian, believe according to the historical evidence. That is what I pivoted to. So, this entire thread is hogwash in the face of actual scholarship.

[Pivotal moment for you here Venom. Please answer carefully.]

Great. I'll make you a deal 'Venom'.... If appealing to scholarly consensus IS your standard, then do I get to appeal to this standard too about all topics? Or, is appealing to scholarly consensus only applicable to certain topics? If yes, meaning, it's always applicable, then we can proceed. If no, meaning adhering to scholarly consensus is not always the standard, please explain why not?

It matters quite a lot. If Jesus (the man) existed, that is too close to home to Jesus (the risen Messiah), existing. So, you'd rather not have him existed at all...no man = no risen Messiah.

LOL! I've been on here for years. This topic was only brough up, years later, since another interlocutor brought it up. Quite frankly, if it should turn out that a homeless apocalyptic preacher really did live, and was executed for 'treason', because the ancient world was quite superstitious -- (as they killed for many weird reasons), then my position changes none. My position is not disrupted at all, as your indoctrinated set of beliefs is still illogical all over the place, and also requires that you believe in many far-fetched and ridiculous claims. The stakes are only HIGH for the believer, not mine.

The subject of Jesus makes people uncomfortable. Jesus' mere presence while in the midst of demon possessed people....his presence alone made the demons shudder.

See my response directly above.

Yeah, just like if abiogenesis is impossible, then game immediately over for evolutionists. Tell me something I don't know.

Ah yes, you just can't help yourself, can you. I doubt there is likely one thread where you do no mention (abiogenesis and/or evolution). I'll be quite curious to get an answer to a very important question above before I address your statement here.

Please answer the question.. Did any Elvis "sighting" stories ever come with an empty tomb, casket, or grave narrative? Yes or no.

Yes, one of Elvis Presley's graves has been reported as empty, specifically his original crypt at Forest Hill Cemetery, which has been empty since his remains were moved to Graceland in October 1977. I guess this means Elvis rose, right?.?.?.? I'll await another pivot...

I conceded it to move on.

You conceded because you put your big fat foot into it. You appeal to scholarly consensus.

Um, I reject your premise that there are consistencies in Mark-Luke...and I simply told you that if I see them, I'll let you know. Not sure what the issue is here.

Again, why do apologists have such a HARD time answering logical hypotheticals? Again, where I live, it's not raining right now, nor is it in the forecast today. And yet, if I asked a friend or family member.... If it rained right now, would the ground get wet? Do you think they would kick up a fuss? No, they would just answer the question.

So, AGAIN, I ask...

How many irreconcilable discrepancies would have to exist between the Gospels before you reject them? 1, 3, 7, more? Please actually answer this time.

Then you and I have differing views on what it means to be "poppin".

I refer back to my original point. Had Constantine not ordained this religion, it's likely you would reject THIS religion for some of the exact same reasons you reject others, like Mormonism.

If Constantine converted to Christianity, then obviously he had to be influenced by an already poppin religion.

Nope. Instead, he claims to have received a divine sign. Kind of like Saul of Tarsus.

All Constantine did was allow for religious freedom and stopped the Christian persucution (which is commendable).

He didn't pass a law stating that every Roman citizen must follow Christianity...if he did that, then you'd have a point...but he didn't do that.

You have to prove that people's conversion to Christianity during his reign was a direct result of his actions, which you can't.

Christianity flourished after Constantine due to his imperial patronage and legal recognition, which transformed it from a persecuted minority religion into a powerful, state-supported faith with significant social, economic, and organizational advantages.

[POI]

Because I'm cool with the scholarly consensus

and..

The scholarly consensus is that he existed. That is what scholars, many of whom aren't even Christian, believe according to the historical evidence. That is what I pivoted to. So, this entire thread is hogwash in the face of actual scholarship.

The majority of biblical scholars and historians generally agree that a number of major biblical events in the Old Testament are mythological or legendary in nature and did not happen as described. In the New Testament, while a historical Jesus is almost universally accepted, many specific miraculous events are viewed by critical scholars as non-historical.

Old Testament Events: Most scholars view the following events from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as unlikely to have occurred historically in the manner described, largely due to a lack of supporting archaeological or external textual evidence:

Creation and Early Narratives: Stories from the Creation (Adam and Eve) through the Tower of Babel are widely considered mythology or "proto-history" rather than literal historical accounts.

Noah's Flood: There is no geological evidence for a global flood, and the physical requirements for such an event are considered impossible by scientists and scholars.

The Patriarchs: The narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are generally seen as reflecting a combination of historical memory, oral traditions, and later literary editing, but lacking strong evidence for the specific events or individuals as described.

The Exodus from Egypt: The story of millions of Israelites being enslaved in Egypt, wandering the desert for 40 years, and conquering Canaan lacks significant archaeological evidence. Most scholars believe the Israelites' origins are as a group of rural Canaanites who settled in the highlands, rather than as an invading force from Egypt.

The United Monarchy (under David and Solomon): While King David is considered a historical figure, the description of a vast and powerful united kingdom ruling over a large empire is believed by many scholars to be an anachronistic exaggeration, likely reflecting a smaller-scale tribal society.

The Book of Esther and Daniel: These are widely considered second-century BCE Jewish novels or historical fiction rather than accurate historical records.

New Testament Events: While most scholars accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate, there is no scholarly consensus on the historicity of many miraculous events.

The Nativity Accounts: The birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain contradictions and are considered non-historical by modern critical scholars; they are viewed as theological documents rather than factual historical accounts of Jesus' birth.

Miraculous Events: Supernatural events such as walking on water, turning water into wine, the mass feeding of 5,000, and other physical miracles are generally regarded as matters of faith, not historical events in the modern sense.

The Slaughter of the Innocents: The event where King Herod slaughters all male children under two in Bethlehem is not mentioned in any historical records outside the Bible, including the detailed histories of Josephus, and is widely considered non-historical.

The Resurrection: The physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a central tenet of Christian faith, but from a purely historical-critical perspective, dead bodies do not rise, and such an event is considered outside the realm of historical inquiry.

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

How many deemed untrue claims from the Bible have to occur, based upon scholarly consensus, before you chuck the book out the window? 1, 2, 5, 7?