Why the fall had to occur

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

We can look at a historical work and decide if it's most likely history or allegory.

We can also ignore history and decide that it is all allegory.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Sure it can, you sit with a mind reader and hold a card in your hand. He makes 100 predictions about what the card is then you weigh the results against chance. Tons of ways to test supernatural abilities.

This is just proving that the particular events were not supernatural in the first place.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Mathematics tells us that a supernatural must exist (by Godel's 'Incompleteness') and also explains why science will never encompass the supernatural (As soon as a natural explanation is found for something outside science's axiomatic definition, it becomes naturally explicable and therefore isn't supernatural at all. This does not mean that we will exhaust all supernatural phenomena, as by mathematical definition there must be phenomena outside of the axiomatic definition).

There are some axiomatic systems that are allowed with Godels therom.

Godel's Incompleteness does not say that axioms can't exist. It says that no system of axioms can ever be complete enough to be self-defining.

originally posted by: chr0naut

But things we consider supernatural can be proven and disproven by science.

Which shows that they weren't supernatural in the first place. Things that are genuinely supernatural are beyond science to investigate.

We could show ESP to be valid even though we have no explanation for it. So it would still remain supernatural.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

originally posted by: chr0naut

No that's a cop out. If a cold reader claims to talk to dead relatives we can set up experiments that will show he's full of crap. What you're suggesting isn't failure it's ignorance.
We CAN expose fraud supernaturalists, and we do. Then they say stuff like this about science being unable to rationally draw a conclusion....no, we caught you and your fraud practice is what we did.

Except that those 'religious' people have always maintained that the Shamans, Spiritists, Necromancers and Fortune Tellers were frauds, from the start.

originally posted by: chr0naut

It works for all religions which shows it's just a lifestyle change, it doesn't show one god is more real than another.

That wasn't what we were talking about. You keep changing the subject.

You said that there was no measured medical advantage to religious belief and I showed that it was entirely untrue.

originally posted by: chr0nautNow you can see the non-dichotomy of deism/theism?

Deism is something that might be possible. Theism is as likely as Spider Man.

No.

You have not once demonstrated the capability to reason from evidence, so I strongly doubt that there is any rational thought the led to your opinion.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

!0^80, not a big number in mathematics at all, not even close. In multiverse theories you'll see stacks of towers like" 10^80^10^80.....10^80 times high. So yeah, there's room for lots of crazy things like singularities.

I agree that it isn't a big number in mathematics, but it is a totally different number than what I was suggesting. An answer to a question that was never asked.

While Prof Padilla has estimated 3.28 10^80 particles in the observable universe. His estimate is based upon estimated actual mass and assumes a minimal boundary on the universe of 'observability'.

His assumption of such a tiny bounded universe assumes that it has a constant positive curvature but WMAP and other measurements have confirmed that the universe is flat and therefore approaches the infinite. So his figure for the number of particles in the universe is a reasonable estimate, just not for this universe.

We were actually talking about potential quantum particle locations in in the universe because we were talking of the likelihood for a quantum event to create a virtual new universe. This number is many magnitudes of magnitude more than the number of non-virtual particles in the constrained universe, calculated by Padilla.

If we assume that each vparticle location is limited by the Planck volume of 1.616229 × 10^−35 m^3 (actually, on further consideration, the square of the Planck volume would be more accurate, but I'm too lazy to recalculate things at present. It doesn't change the general gist of the figures), then Padilla's number, 3.28 x 10^80 of particles only occupy a space of (very) approximately 1^45 m^3, which is less than 30 cubic light-years (for perspective, the diameter of the observable universe is calculated to be 93,000,000,000 light years).

I thought it would be cool if quantum cosmology might lean toward a creator. I like to follow evidence and give things a chance as I'm not stuck in any dogmatic place where I have to believe something irrational.
But physicist Sean Carroll really kind of smashed my hopes that a creator god was likely.

I disagree with his ideas on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics but his presentation on why a creator is not likely to be needed was hard to debunk.

Hard to debunk for you!

While he admit's no one knows for sure, the current cosmological arguments are not in favor of a super creator.
I could't think of any serious chinks in his arguments.

www.youtube.com...

The current cosmological arguments are all hypotheses and most of them don't agree with each other.

As Carroll points out, "no-one knows", but that also is just an opinion. He has no way of actually knowing if someone knows, or not.

An inability to tell an opinion from a fact, highlights gullibility.

a reply to: chr0naut

Not to participate in the derailment of the subject of this thread anymore into one about science, as well as science falsely so called as Paul once stated, but I am surprised that no one brought up this piece of information here showing that the universe even having a beginning has become a major problem, a thorn in the side of the various secular, unbelieving scientists. They are now saying that due to the amount of matter and anti-matter present, the universe shouldn't exist at all because all of their models show that it would have destroyed itself from the jump. So they are basically saying that our very existence is a miracle. Now, The universe NOT having a beginning would solve all of their problems, and its exactly this "startling revelation" that I am expecting to spring up at some point in the near future as apart of a major deception, what I strongly believe will have to be a major tenet of the lie of the 'strong delusion' Paul referred to.

The current model for the birth of the universe predicts that equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced by the Big Bang.

But, since matter and antimatter are identical except for their opposite electrical charges, they annihilate each other — a reaction that fuels the starship Enterprise on “Star Trek.” When the two collide, they combust in a violent eruption, meaning none of anything should be here today.

Link: The universe shouldn't exist according to scientists

originally posted by: Dcopymope
a reply to: chr0naut

Not to participate in the derailment of the subject of this thread anymore into one about science, as well as science falsely so called as Paul once stated, but I am surprised that no one brought up this piece of information here showing that the universe even having a beginning has become a major problem, a thorn in the side of the various secular, unbelieving scientists. They are now saying that due to the amount of matter and anti-matter present, the universe shouldn't exist at all because all of their models show that it would have destroyed itself from the jump. So they are basically saying that our very existence is a miracle. Now, The universe NOT having a beginning would solve all of their problems, and its exactly this "startling revelation" that I am expecting to spring up at some point in the near future as apart of a major deception, what I strongly believe will have to be a major tenet of the lie of the 'strong delusion' Paul referred to.

The current model for the birth of the universe predicts that equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced by the Big Bang.

But, since matter and antimatter are identical except for their opposite electrical charges, they annihilate each other — a reaction that fuels the starship Enterprise on “Star Trek.” When the two collide, they combust in a violent eruption, meaning none of anything should be here today.

Link: The universe shouldn't exist according to scientists

Yeah, what goes around, comes around.

The steady state theories of Hoyle et al were never actually debunked but the assumption that stellar red-shift was optical Doppler effect and the presence of a CMB spoke in favor of a Big Bang.

So the BB became 'the' theory and, for a while, there seemed to be lots of corroborative evidence.

Then the chinks in the armor began to accumulate:

The red-shift appeared to be quantized, with Doppler assumed distances always seeming to appear in large discrete steps.

There were 'blue outliers', hundreds of super massive extremely distant objects that were supposed to be moving away from us at nearly the speed of light, due to the expansion of the universe, but somehow were moving in the opposite direction, toward us, at nearly the speed of light.

Then there was no real explanation how the universe could have overcome its own gravity, to expand (even if initial impetus was at the speed of light - Black Holes show that gravity exceeds such forces of momentum which is why they have event horizons where even light cannot escape).

Then there were no white holes which could provide an analogue for an 'expanding singularity' and therefore the idea was unlikely to reflect reality. After reviewing the math that describes black holes, it became apparent that such a white hole is not a valid solution and explains their absence from the universe.

Then there was much confusion over the extent of the universe, in the time frame allowed, which suggested that expansion must have exceeded the speed of light, yet we know that as an impossibility.

We also had challenges as to if it was possible for a quantum fluctuation to have spawned a singularity, with all matter occupying the same location, as Pauli exclusion prevents such a case and the impossibility of virtual particles occupying the same space as another particle is evidenced in the Casimir experiment.

Then there is the issue of the observed low frequency of Big Bangs. Usually, the number of probability states is intrinsic in the complexity of the media from which the probabilities arise. In the case of the quantum, there are four states. Yet the observed low probability (so low that we have only seen the results of 1:14.3 billion years, is theorized to come from something of zero complexity?

... and there are other discrepancies that I'm not sure I could do justice to in an online post.

a reply to: Dcopymope

Interesting video

The fall didn't have to happen. YHWH admits Polarity/Time was a risky move. He admits he shouldn't have desired to share the universe with a child.

You cant quantize without a calculator. Thats what N(+) does. A refracted pulsing pulling force. No gravity sine waves, just pulses. You cant quantify omnipresent antigravity with more of the same. You cant detect waves with more waves. They must enter another dimension to be quantified. A machine. A recorder, a monitor, a ping, a report, an echo. Polarity was created, by what became the S(-). Termed negative by your favorite Satanist Ben Franklin. Fitting for the backwards world of nucleus worshippers. .

originally posted by: chr0naut



Of course Paul entered the scene after the Crucifixion.

Interestingly, If Paul was making up the stories about Jesus, wouldn't he have made the suggestion that he had personally sat at the feet of Jesus?

Yet even though Paul was clearly a contemporary of Jesus, and as a devout Jew probably did yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem on Passover. He could easily have been in the same city at the same time as Jesus.

Yet Paul only admits of seeing Jesus in a vision, and after Jesus had already been Crucified?

Exactly, Paul knows nothing of an earthly Jesus or his works. Paul was likely referring to a celestial version of Jesus who battled Satan, dies and rose again in the lower firmament.

The first we hear about any biography (the gospels) come 1 lifetime later (40 years is a lifetime then).

None of the Gospels or New Testament Epistles mention the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Due to the phenomenal social impact of destruction and diaspora for Jewish people, to omit even a single reference seems odd.

From this, we can deduce that the entire New Testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

Then outside sources like Josephus are either shown to be forgery or simply referring to the gospels. They do not provide outside sourcing for the life of Jesus.

originally posted by: chr0naut


So the Epistles only speak of a pre-existent celestial being and revelation.
The Gospels come one lifetime later and ALL later attestations are based only on them.

Jesus was Crucified in 33 AD, Jerusalem fell in 70 AD.

That's actually a 37 year time frame for the entire New Testament to have been written in.

Josephus was 63 years old when he died and so referring to 37 years as 'a lifetime' was clearly not always the case.

In scholarship a "lifetime" during that era was 47 years - the statistical age people lived to.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and Jesus are basically all on the hero's journey. The mythologies are similar.
en.wikipedia.org...


There are also many historical stories that are heroic. Having similar story-like elements to myths doesn't make an account mythical.

Lord Raglans 22-point myth-ritualist list scores Jesus very highly on the "probably a myth" list.
en.wikipedia.org...
However Carrier goes even deeper to the analysis of writing styles and shows connections to ancient mythology, parable and allegorical writing and other common literary devices that scholarship used to decide the bible is not history but just storytelling.

originally posted by: chr0naut
No I'm explaining how the cargo cults and Christianity are exactly the same.


In the same way that the Lewis and Clark story is exactly the same (they all include human beings and places and events).



According to Scientific American, the New Guinea cargo cult discovered in 1946 by Australian anthropologists held that: "The arrival of the Whites was the sign that the end of the world was at hand. The natives proceeded to butcher all of their pigs-animals that were not only a principal source of subsistence but also ,symbols of social status and ritual preeminence in their culture. They killed these valued animals in expression of the belief that after three days of darkness "Great Pigs" would appear from the sky. Food, firewood and other necessities had to be stock-piled to see the people through to the arrival of the Great Pigs. Mock wireless antennae of bamboo and rope had been erected to receive in advance the news of the millennium. Many believed that with the great event they would exchange their black skins for white ones."

This doesn't sound like your synopsis at all.

The Cargo cults started with revelations and prophecies. When the military men started appearing their savior diety became "John Frum" and such. They used the original revelations to fit these foreigners who seemed to have god-like technology. They were then able to say "Look our predictions are true!
But we know none of the religion is actualy true/

We see a similar thing happening with Christianity. They had some revelations and predictions and then lumped them on to this new character Jesus who seems to be a mix of previous messiah religions plus borrowingg from the Jewish angelology stories about an angel named Jesus who dies and was reborn in the lower firmament.

originally posted by: chr0naut
By reasoning, I deduce there must be a Creator intelligence, that intelligence probably has a purpose for their Creation and would therefore direct their creation to fulfill its role.

Since a segment of the Creation are themselves intelligent, it makes sense that the Creator would assist them in achieveing the purpose for which they are created. This would be the 'true' religion.

And yet all of the supernatural stories are fiction, the messianic model of sinning and pissing off the big sky-god but getting redemption actually flows from Zorastrianism, right into a few others and then we see a Jewish version.
Coincidentally right at the same time the Persians were invading Jewish lands.
Suddenly the Jews have an afterlife complete with a bad guy vs good guy model (All Zor. concepts).

Then ZERO outside sources corroborate gospel happenings except for forgery and people who simply read the gospels.
I haven't even started on the first 40 years of Christianity which wasn't like modern Christianity AT ALL and was an obvious power grab by Bishops of the time.

Read Elaine Pagels The Lost Gospels to see how Gnosticism was 50% or more of Christianity, did not require Jesus to get you into the afterlife, gave all members the power of redemption and christ and was highly Eastern.
In her book you can see how the bishops wanted only people of the bloodline listed in the gospel to be able to teach, interpret and read scripture.

The bishops also strongly disagreed with any scripture that gave any control to church members.
There were originally over 40 gospels.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The growth rate of Christianity and Mormonism are about equal for the first 30 years.


I have already established that as untrue.

We know Mormonism is false so we know this growth rate speaks nothing to the validity of the source material being true.

No, Richard Carrier states in several of his presentations that the growth rate of Mormonism and the growth rate of early Christianity are the same over a 30 year period. So we know it's possible for an un-true religion to grow quickly therefore the growth rate of Christianity does not speak to it being true at all.
Carrier and his opponents do not disagree with this. Stop using apologetics as actual history.

originally posted by: chr0naut
To debunk the Historicist claims would require actual contrary evidence. Not baseless supposition. The evidence is all on the side of the authenticity of sources.

There are universities of Christian academics who do their own investigations and publish their findings. This has been going on for 2,000 years, since Christianity was birthed in the First Century.

Not one extra-biblical source that could corroborate any happenings from the bible is without controversy.
Most have been easily shown to be forgery or mis-leading or some other such trickery.
You know this to be true yet keep pretending like it's not.
Listen to a lecture given by a historian on extra-biblical evidence, they all admit it's does not solve any questions.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Science relies on evidence. You have just rejected the Gospel sources and the third party sources. There is no evidence left, you cannot claim science in support.

You have also suggested, instead, a hypothesis that has no evidence of its own and you fawn all over anyone who seems to support your prejudice and will not accept any contrary evidence.

That is not a scientific perspective.

Why do you keep saying "me".
Scholarship knows the gospels are mythology in the supernatural aspect. Scholarship knows extra-biblical evidence does not support the gospels as history.

The only "contradictory" evidence is "but it says so in the bible". It's a circular argument that Christian apologosts use over and over. They simply won't accept history as we know it.

Creationists simply are not going to allow for geo-sciences to be heard in the argument. So let them run around with their 6000 year old human heads cut off until they decide to listen to science.

Same with historicity, Jesus was just a man.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I have presented supporting evidence. You have presented none.

I am now convinced that there isn't the slightest truth in anything you have said.

See, so after all that, you want to take a PHD and all of the historicity field and pretend like it's not real. Then say # like "You presented none"

Ha, you could read Carriers book on the historicity of Jesus, or watch some of his lectures. But instead you're going to pretend everything I said isn't real "I am now convinced that there isn't the slightest truth in anything you have said."

This is what apologists do, they simply ignore any evidence put forth as if it does't exist.

You want a science based argument then you refuse to admit what our current historicity and archeological sciences have to say.
You do not want a science based argument, you want a discussion that you can walk away from pretending like the mythology you believe still might be real.

This is why I've mostly avoided posting actual time stamps to Carrier's statements. You will just ignore then in the end.

All of your supporting evidence has been debunked by historians.

originally posted by: chr0naut

We can also ignore history and decide that it is all allegory.

You can decide Mormonism is historically accurate, along with Zeus and his demigod son Hercules. That could be accurate.
But probabilistically it's probably allegory. Equally so is the Christian mythology.

originally posted by: chr0naut
This is just proving that the particular events were not supernatural in the first place.

Sure but eventually (if religions) are true one of these characters will have super powers that can be tested.

And these tests have shown that NONE of these people have supernatural powers. So the odds of anyone in mythology having super powers is dim.

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are some axiomatic systems that are allowed with Godels therom.


Godel's Incompleteness does not say that axioms can't exist. It says that no system of axioms can ever be complete enough to be self-defining.

There is more to Godels therom, transfinite induction can show consistency up to E0 which is a transfinite ordinal (infinite).

originally posted by: chr0naut

Which shows that they weren't supernatural in the first place. Things that are genuinely supernatural are beyond science to investigate.

We have found ZERO supernatural so far. The odds of Hercules being a supernatural being is super-LOW.

originally posted by: chr0nautNo that's a cop out. If a cold reader claims to talk to dead relatives we can set up experiments that will show he's full of crap. What you're suggesting isn't failure it's ignorance.
We CAN expose fraud supernaturalists, and we do. Then they say stuff like this about science being unable to rationally draw a conclusion....no, we caught you and your fraud practice is what we did.


Except that those 'religious' people have always maintained that the Shamans, Spiritists, Necromancers and Fortune Tellers were frauds, from the start.

And non-religious people have known religious people are frauds from the start also!?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Now you can see the non-dichotomy of deism/theism?

Deism is something that might be possible. Theism is as likely as Spider Man.
No.


Yes Deism is a possibility, it's open ended, it has nothing to do with Earth god mythologies. Every Thiesm created by humans, including Christianity is clearly a mythology. The origins are traceable, the words are obvious parables, allegories, the drama is 100% religious synchronism.

Just like you know there is no chance Romulus is the correct savior god who rose from the dead in 3 days in order to conquor death for it's followers, giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life. Where Romulus then rose up to heaven leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.
well the Jews borrowed those concepts and they did not become MORE TRUE in that process.

You know this. So Theism had no proof or even any scientific probability of being real.
Or about the same as Thor.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I agree that it isn't a big number in mathematics, but it is a totally different number than what I was suggesting. An answer to a question that was never asked.

While Prof Padilla has estimated 3.28 10^80 particles in the observable universe. His estimate is based upon estimated actual mass and assumes a minimal boundary on the universe of 'observability'.

His assumption of such a tiny bounded universe assumes that it has a constant positive curvature but WMAP and other measurements have confirmed that the universe is flat and therefore approaches the infinite. So his figure for the number of particles in the universe is a reasonable estimate, just not for this universe.

We were actually talking about potential quantum particle locations in in the universe because we were talking of the likelihood for a quantum event to create a virtual new universe. This number is many magnitudes of magnitude more than the number of non-virtual particles in the constrained universe, calculated by Padilla.

If we assume that each vparticle location is limited by the Planck volume of 1.616229 × 10^−35 m^3 (actually, on further consideration, the square of the Planck volume would be more accurate, but I'm too lazy to recalculate things at present. It doesn't change the general gist of the figures), then Padilla's number, 3.28 x 10^80 of particles only occupy a space of (very) approximately 1^45 m^3, which is less than 30 cubic light-years (for perspective, the diameter of the observable universe is calculated to be 93,000,000,000 light years).

No the universe has not been confirmed flat.
There isn't enough potential particles in the universe to create a big bang event but it's the erea "outside" the universe that may be infinite and have infinite time to create a universe.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Hard to debunk for you!

I don't hear any counter-arguments that are are putting stress on his arguments.

originally posted by: chr0naut


An inability to tell an opinion from a fact, gullibility.

Not at the frontiers of science. It highlights intellect. He made a good argument. You can't compete with it.

originally posted by: Dcopymope
a reply to: chr0naut

Not to participate in the derailment of the subject of this thread anymore into one about science, as well as science falsely so called as Paul once stated, but I am surprised that no one brought up this piece of information here showing that the universe even having a beginning has become a major problem, a thorn in the side of the various secular, unbelieving scientists. They are now saying that due to the amount of matter and anti-matter present, the universe shouldn't exist at all because all of their models show that it would have destroyed itself from the jump. So they are basically saying that our very existence is a miracle. Now, The universe NOT having a beginning would solve all of their problems, and its exactly this "startling revelation" that I am expecting to spring up at some point in the near future as apart of a major deception, what I strongly believe will have to be a major tenet of the lie of the 'strong delusion' Paul referred to.

The current model for the birth of the universe predicts that equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced by the Big Bang.

But, since matter and antimatter are identical except for their opposite electrical charges, they annihilate each other — a reaction that fuels the starship Enterprise on “Star Trek.” When the two collide, they combust in a violent eruption, meaning none of anything should be here today.

Link: The universe shouldn't exist according to scientists

In science we get mysteries, religious people put god in the gap.
With science you just wait, usually something happens. Then the god in that gap gets pushed further out. Same old story.
www.cbsnews.com...

Even without this discovery it doesn't mean Inanna was a real savior god or Jesus, who was modeled after Innana, was a real savior demi-god either.

originally posted by: joelr
Just like you know there is no chance Romulus is the correct savior god who rose from the dead in 3 days in order to conquor death for it's followers, giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life. Where Romulus then rose up to heaven leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.
well the Jews borrowed those concepts and they did not become MORE TRUE in that process.

Did I misunderstand your words or does that sound like the people who made the documentary Zeitgeist? Can you help me find something in the stories about Romulus (from Romulus and Remus I presume, unless you mean another Romulus) to corroborate what you described there about Romulus (if that is how you meant it)? Please don't just point me to some ancient document about Romulus without quoting what is relevant from it regarding the things you just mentioned:

1. rose from the dead in 3 days
2. conquor death for its (his?) followers
3. giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life
4. rose up to heaven
5. leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.

You do realize 12 birds seen in a contest of augury (the practice from ancient Roman religion of interpreting omens from the observed flight of birds), as opposed to the 6 birds Remus saw, does not make "leaving behind 12 disciples to spread his word"?

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

Exactly, Paul knows nothing of an earthly Jesus or his works. Paul was likely referring to a celestial version of Jesus who battled Satan, dies and rose again in the lower firmament.

Why would you say that?

It doesn't seem that such ideas have a good historical uptake. By far the dominant interpretation of Paul's faith is that held by the Christian churches.

The first we hear about any biography (the gospels) come 1 lifetime later (40 years is a lifetime then).

originally posted by: chr0naut

In scholarship a "lifetime" during that era was 47 years - the statistical age people lived to.

37 years is 10 years less than 47, with the short duration of the average life span, 10 years would have been a very significant difference.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Lord Raglans 22-point myth-ritualist list scores Jesus very highly on the "probably a myth" list.
en.wikipedia.org...

From Wikipedia:

"Folklorist Francis Utley claimed to have demonstrated serious flaws in using Raglan's list for determining mythical or historical nature of any person or account by applying them on definite historical people such as Abraham Lincoln. He claimed that Abraham Lincoln fit all of Lord Raglan's 22 points and that using Raglan's ideas would lead one to conclude that Lincoln was a mythical figure. Another recent historical figure that he claims fit the Hero pattern quite well was John F. Kennedy and William Wallace from the medieval period did as well.

Classicist Thomas J. Sienkewicz did other rankings of numerous Heroes and among those that scored quite high were actual historical persons like Tsar Nicholas II (14), Mithridates VI of Pontus (22) Muhammad (17), Jesus (18), and Buddha (15). Fictional characters such as Harry Potter (8) scored lower."

However Carrier goes even deeper to the analysis of writing styles and shows connections to ancient mythology, parable and allegorical writing and other common literary devices that scholarship used to decide the bible is not history but just storytelling.

They use the same mythological and allegorical literary devices in news and media articles today. It doesn't make the news fake, it is just use of idiom.

originally posted by: chr0naut
No I'm explaining how the cargo cults and Christianity are exactly the same.

The Cargo cults started with revelations and prophecies. When the military men started appearing their savior diety became "John Frum" and such. They used the original revelations to fit these foreigners who seemed to have god-like technology. They were then able to say "Look our predictions are true!
But we know none of the religion is actualy true/

We see a similar thing happening with Christianity. They had some revelations and predictions and then lumped them on to this new character Jesus who seems to be a mix of previous messiah religions plus borrowingg from the Jewish angelology stories about an angel named Jesus who dies and was reborn in the lower firmament.

Christians don't believe that. It doesn't describe Christianity at all. It is total nonsense.

Also, Jewish angelology had no mention of an angel called Jesus (another piece of nonsense you are suggesting):

Angels in Judaism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of angels in theology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and the person of Jesus and the historical period into which He fitted, clearly preceded the Church in history.

originally posted by: chr0naut

And yet all of the supernatural stories are fiction,

Some investigations into supernatural events have found physical traces, photographs and instrument readings. It is not valid science to ignore evidence just because it doesn't fit with your worldview.

the messianic model of sinning and pissing off the big sky-god but getting redemption actually flows from Zorastrianism, right into a few others and then we see a Jewish version.
Coincidentally right at the same time the Persians were invading Jewish lands.
Suddenly the Jews have an afterlife complete with a bad guy vs good guy model (All Zor. concepts).

Actually, Zoroastrianism and Judaism share common concepts and the suggestion that has been made is that Melchizedek, the King of Salem (prefiguring Jerusalem) and whom Abraham honored, was possibly Zoroastrian. The thing is that there were specific events which had numerous spectators in the Hebrew accounts and there are also marked differences between between Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

Then ZERO outside sources corroborate gospel happenings except for forgery and people who simply read the gospels.
I haven't even started on the first 40 years of Christianity which wasn't like modern Christianity AT ALL and was an obvious power grab by Bishops of the time.

You keep saying that there are no outside sources or that they are fake and nether assertion is supported by evidence, historical record or even valid reasoning.

Read Elaine Pagels The Lost Gospels to see how Gnosticism was 50% or more of Christianity, did not require Jesus to get you into the afterlife, gave all members the power of redemption and christ and was highly Eastern.
In her book you can see how the bishops wanted only people of the bloodline listed in the gospel to be able to teach, interpret and read scripture.

As Elaine Pagels has never published any work called "The Lost Gospels", I am unlikely to accept your statement.

The basis of Pagel's suppositions were 12 documents in a single clay jar, the Nag Hammadi 'library'. Several of the Nag Hammadi documents are known fakes, purporting to be Classical and Hermetical manuscripts but with content entirely different that the true originals (and most childishly abbreviated).

The bishops also strongly disagreed with any scripture that gave any control to church members.
There were originally over 40 gospels.

Yes, there are over 40 'gospels' but they were hardly 'originals'.

Only the four canonical Gospels (and possibly the Gospel of Thomas) had a 1st Century origin.

There are people writing "gospels" to this day, that does not mean that they are either valid or canonical.

The canonical Gospels are not discredited in some way because of the existence of later (and largely discredited) wannabe's.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut
The growth rate of Christianity and Mormonism are about equal for the first 30 years.

I have already established that as untrue.

We know Mormonism is false so we know this growth rate speaks nothing to the validity of the source material being true.

No, Richard Carrier states in several of his presentations that the growth rate of Mormonism and the growth rate of early Christianity are the same over a 30 year period.

Well, where does Dick Carrier get his data? I have provided credentialled sources and the figures disagree.

So we know it's possible for an un-true religion to grow quickly therefore the growth rate of Christianity does not speak to it being true at all.
Carrier and his opponents do not disagree with this. Stop using apologetics as actual history.

Apologetics?

I was quoting membership numbers and provided link details to their source.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Not one extra-biblical source that could corroborate any happenings from the bible is without controversy.
Most have been easily shown to be forgery or mis-leading or some other such trickery.
You know this to be true yet keep pretending like it's not.
Listen to a lecture given by a historian on extra-biblical evidence, they all admit it's does not solve any questions.

Honestly, most Classicists consider the extra-Biblical evidence to be strong and consistent with secular historical writings of the same period.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Science relies on evidence. You have just rejected the Gospel sources and the third party sources. There is no evidence left, you cannot claim science in support.

You have also suggested, instead, a hypothesis that has no evidence of its own and you fawn all over anyone who seems to support your prejudice and will not accept any contrary evidence.

That is not a scientific perspective.

Why do you keep saying "me".

Because you wrote the post.

Scholarship knows the gospels are mythology in the supernatural aspect. Scholarship knows extra-biblical evidence does not support the gospels as history.

The majority of scholars see Jesus as a historical person. They also accept the extra-Biblical evidence at face value because of the impossibility of faking it so completely.

Your appeal to the unnamed authority of 'scholarship' is pretty weak argument.

The only "contradictory" evidence is "but it says so in the bible". It's a circular argument that Christian apologosts use over and over. They simply won't accept history as we know it.

We have coins, architectures, frescoes, tiled mosaics, grafitti, tombs and bones, manuscripts, histories and we have the Bible, too.

You aren't accepting history.

Creationists simply are not going to allow for geo-sciences to be heard in the argument. So let them run around with their 6000 year old human heads cut off until they decide to listen to science.

Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of Christians who are geologists:

Affiliation of Christian Geologists

Same with historicity, Jesus was just a man.

originally posted by: chr0naut

See, so after all that, you want to take a PHD and all of the historicity field and pretend like it's not real.

You seem to say that Jesus didn't exist and then that he did?

If Jesus was historical, He existed. If he wasn't historical, then he didn't.

I, like many other academics, believe Jesus did exist, as a man, historically.

He also performed miracles. He claimed to be the Son of God and was proclaimed to be the Son of God, by God himself and this was witnessed by several disciples.

The Disciples, Thomas and Peter, at different times, both called Jesus God. Jesus didn't deny it and instead said that they only knew this because God had allowed them to know.

Having a Ph.D does not mean that someone is right or truthful. Carrier's only claim to fame is that he denies what numerous other Ph.D accredited academics don't deny.

Then say # like "You presented none"

Ha, you could read Carriers book on the historicity of Jesus, or watch some of his lectures. But instead you're going to pretend everything I said isn't real "I am now convinced that there isn't the slightest truth in anything you have said."

This is what apologists do, they simply ignore any evidence put forth as if it does't exist.

You want a science based argument then you refuse to admit what our current historicity and archeological sciences have to say.
You do not want a science based argument, you want a discussion that you can walk away from pretending like the mythology you believe still might be real.

This is why I've mostly avoided posting actual time stamps to Carrier's statements. You will just ignore then in the end.

All of your supporting evidence has been debunked by historians.

That isn't true. You are talking about 60,000 pieces of documentary evidence that somehow someone has faked, every single one, and have done so without anyone getting wise. Not to mention new archaeological finds which agree with the current conservative view that Jesus was historical.

Carrier's work has been debunked by historians. He has even managed to try and misrepresent Christianity as believing something it doesn't, based upon what Carrier attributes to the Jewish faith, but doesn't even exist there either.

He has said things that are obvious and transparent falsehoods, inventing facts and figures which disagree with the authoritative sources and implying that all other academics agree with him when it is a matter of record that the vast majority don't.

Carrier has also rejected all evidence, Christian and secular, Biblical and extra-Biblical, as being fictional. This has also left him in a position of having no evidence for his theories, either. A fact that any reasoning person can see but that he and his sycophants don't seem to realize.

The academic community won't even give Carrier's publications recognition. Why?

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

No the universe has not been confirmed flat.

How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe

There isn't enough potential particles in the universe to create a big bang event but it's the erea "outside" the universe that may be infinite and have infinite time to create a universe.

If the universe arose from nothing, as is suggested, there isn't anything outside of the universe.

If it didn't arise from nothing, then we have an issue of original cause just being pushed back further.

Since we have no evidence or measurement of anything but our universe, everything else is tenuous beyond hypothesis.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Hard to debunk for you!

I don't hear any counter-arguments that are are putting stress on his arguments.

- The many worlds interpretation has an issue of where all that energy comes from.

- The huge proliferation of universes for explaining the observations of an observer. In a way it does not respect the Occam's razor. (Many worlders claim MWI respects it since this interpretation has an economy of principles).

- The problem of preferred basis, where we subjectively find ourselves in one branch. There are major problems with this interpretation.

- Different branches can and will recombine in the future. This is seldom emphasized, but this throws a wrench in the interpretation. In fact, for a system in thermal equilibrium, branching and recombination happens at an equal rate. It's only thanks to the fact that locally, we are out of equilibrium that one-way branching makes any approximate sense at all.

- There's no canonical preferred basis in general, not even macroscopically. Decoherence works most of the time at macroscopic scales, but with many important exceptions. If decoherence were universal at macroscopic scales, do you think we'd be able to observe double slit experiments or superconductivity or quantum optics? Even more troubling is the fact that the basis to be chosen can depend contextually upon future decisions, as in the delayed choice experiment.

- In the many minds interpretation, subjectively fixing the conscious state of the observer still leaves most of the rest of the universe in an indeterminate superposition. Only those coarse-grained properties of the "world out there" corresponding to our internal conscious states will be determined by entanglement.

- If the other worlds out there have some objective existence, how come we can't extract information from them, except in very special cases where we have a coherent variation in the phase and amplitudes between the many branches which then recombine? Not only that, after recombination, the separate worlds lose their separate identities. Besides, a coherent variation rules out the possibility of a complex intelligent observer, at least in the part of the wave

- Defining a suitable measure of probability to achieve Born rule (i.e. p(x)=|ψ(x)|2).

- Other universes can not be observed. (A variation of saying it does not respect Occam's razor)

- It is rather a psychological way of thinking about Q.T. rather than a real ontology.

originally posted by: chr0naut
An inability to tell an opinion from a fact, gullibility.

Not at the frontiers of science. It highlights intellect. He made a good argument. You can't compete with it.

His argument/s had no basis in fact.

It is a hypothetical founded upon more un-evidenced hypotheticals. Fantasy is a better description.

Science is about objective evidence, without objective evidence, it isn't science.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0nautWe can also ignore history and decide that it is all allegory.

You can decide Mormonism is historically accurate, along with Zeus and his demigod son Hercules. That could be accurate.
But probabilistically it's probably allegory. Equally so is the Christian mythology.

Probabalisticly, you could be wrong. Therefore you are.

You see, it is a slippery slope.

originally posted by: chr0nautThis is just proving that the particular events were not supernatural in the first place.

Sure but eventually (if religions) are true one of these characters will have super powers that can be tested.

And these tests have shown that NONE of these people have supernatural powers. So the odds of anyone in mythology having super powers is dim.

What tests?

Your whole edifice is slim supposition based upon things which haven't happened.

originally posted by: chr0nautThere are some axiomatic systems that are allowed with Godels therom. Godel's Incompleteness does not say that axioms can't exist. It says that no system of axioms can ever be complete enough to be self-defining.

There is more to Godels therom, transfinite induction can show consistency up to E0 which is a transfinite ordinal (infinite).

Actually, you have that backwards.

Gentzen showed that transfinite induction up to the ordinal ε0 cannot itself be formalized (in accordance with Incompleteness) because it only applies to finite sets but itself uses the infinite regression of transfinite induction.

... and the ordinal numbers themselves are not infinities, they describe steps in an infinite series.

originally posted by: chr0nautWhich shows that they weren't supernatural in the first place. Things that are genuinely supernatural are beyond science to investigate.

We have found ZERO supernatural so far. The odds of Hercules being a supernatural being is super-LOW.

My contention was that science is incapable of evaluating evidence of the supernatural. It doesn't follow that there is no evidence.

No Evidence of the Supernatural?

originally posted by: chr0nautNo that's a cop out. If a cold reader claims to talk to dead relatives we can set up experiments that will show he's full of crap. What you're suggesting isn't failure it's ignorance.
We CAN expose fraud supernaturalists, and we do. Then they say stuff like this about science being unable to rationally draw a conclusion....no, we caught you and your fraud practice is what we did. Except that those 'religious' people have always maintained that the Shamans, Spiritists, Necromancers and Fortune Tellers were frauds, from the start.

And non-religious people have known religious people are frauds from the start also!?

Big generalizations in your statement.

No, some non-religious people have accused religious people of fraud (and indeed, some are frauds) but some non-religious people are not so prejudiced.

However, there is no evidence that damns every single accused and there is evidence which acquits the vast majority.

Do we reject all science because scientific fraudsters have been found out? No.

originally posted by: chr0nautNow you can see the non-dichotomy of deism/theism?

Deism is something that might be possible. Theism is as likely as Spider Man. No.

Yes Deism is a possibility, it's open ended, it has nothing to do with Earth god mythologies. Every Thiesm created by humans, including Christianity is clearly a mythology. The origins are traceable, the words are obvious parables, allegories, the drama is 100% religious synchronism.

I think you meant 'syncretism'.

To paraphrase you; 'Every scientific hypothesis created by humans, is clearly a mythology as they are based upon assumptions that cannot be proven. The origins are traceable, the words are obvious metaphor, allegories, the drama is 100% pseudoscientific syncretism'.

Just like you know there is no chance Romulus is the correct savior god who rose from the dead in 3 days in order to conquor death for it's followers, giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life. Where Romulus then rose up to heaven leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.
well the Jews borrowed those concepts and they did not become MORE TRUE in that process.

Romulus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not even close.

And the documented and formalized Jewish faith had been going for a millennia (circa 1300 BC) before the ancient Roman kingdom (purportedly established by Romulus) arose about 750-500 BC. If anything, it would have to be the Romans who stole Jewish ideas.

You know this. So Theism had no proof or even any scientific probability of being real.
Or about the same as Thor.


You have no proof of any of your circular reasoning. It is unfounded opinion.

You see, probabalisticly, you could be wrong. Therefore you are.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Dcopymope
a reply to: chr0naut

Not to participate in the derailment of the subject of this thread anymore into one about science, as well as science falsely so called as Paul once stated, but I am surprised that no one brought up this piece of information here showing that the universe even having a beginning has become a major problem, a thorn in the side of the various secular, unbelieving scientists. They are now saying that due to the amount of matter and anti-matter present, the universe shouldn't exist at all because all of their models show that it would have destroyed itself from the jump. So they are basically saying that our very existence is a miracle. Now, The universe NOT having a beginning would solve all of their problems, and its exactly this "startling revelation" that I am expecting to spring up at some point in the near future as apart of a major deception, what I strongly believe will have to be a major tenet of the lie of the 'strong delusion' Paul referred to.

The current model for the birth of the universe predicts that equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced by the Big Bang.

But, since matter and antimatter are identical except for their opposite electrical charges, they annihilate each other — a reaction that fuels the starship Enterprise on “Star Trek.” When the two collide, they combust in a violent eruption, meaning none of anything should be here today.

Link: The universe shouldn't exist according to scientists

In science we get mysteries, religious people put god in the gap.
With science you just wait, usually something happens. Then the god in that gap gets pushed further out. Same old story.
www.cbsnews.com...

Even without this discovery it doesn't mean Inanna was a real savior god or Jesus, who was modeled after Innana, was a real savior demi-god either.

Religious people attribute the whole shebang to God.

Science is the one that has the gaps. Let it attend to its own failings.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: joelr
Just like you know there is no chance Romulus is the correct savior god who rose from the dead in 3 days in order to conquor death for it's followers, giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life. Where Romulus then rose up to heaven leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.
well the Jews borrowed those concepts and they did not become MORE TRUE in that process.

Did I misunderstand your words or does that sound like the people who made the documentary Zeitgeist? Can you help me find something in the stories about Romulus (from Romulus and Remus I presume, unless you mean another Romulus) to corroborate what you described there about Romulus (if that is how you meant it)? Please don't just point me to some ancient document about Romulus without quoting what is relevant from it regarding the things you just mentioned:

1. rose from the dead in 3 days
2. conquor death for its (his?) followers
3. giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life
4. rose up to heaven
5. leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.

You do realize 12 birds seen in a contest of augury (the practice from ancient Roman religion of interpreting omens from the observed flight of birds), as opposed to the 6 birds Remus saw, does not make "leaving behind 12 disciples to spread his word"?

M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history) Richard Carrier touches on this here:
www.youtube.com... at 11:02

there is much more detail with sources in his main book.

The Zeitgeist video was taken from information gathered by D.M. Murdock www.truthbeknown.com...
she is a scholar and has worked as a trench master in Egypt however, she isn't as high level as Carrier and some of her information has been debunked by Carrier.
For example her work on Mithras being a dying and rising god was shown to be in error by Dr Carrier.
So I would not count the Zeitgeist video as good of a source as Carriers book on the historicity of Jesus.

Murdock wrote several books which were used as source material for the video. Again, much of it is probably accurate but her work is not considered as part of current scholarship.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Exactly, Paul knows nothing of an earthly Jesus or his works. Paul was likely referring to a celestial version of Jesus who battled Satan, dies and rose again in the lower firmament.
Why would you say that?

It doesn't seem that such ideas have a good historical uptake. By far the dominant interpretation of Paul's faith is that held by the Christian churches.

Because Acts is accepted as forgery and in Paul's letters there is no mention of any earthly Jesus or his works. None whatsoever.
It's likely Paul was referring to a Jesus in the celestial realm.

Here: www.youtube.com...
at 40:30 information on the celestial realms and how it relates to resurrection and as a general concept in those days and reasons why Paul was probably referring to a celestial Jesus.

"Archaeons of this Aeon" is a phrase Paul uses to describe who killed Jesus and a phrase that is also later used to refer to demons.


Paul only knows of Jesus through revelation and scripture. Mark takes the Pauline Jesus and creates an earthly story around it.

"Suffer not a woman to teach, blah blah" There are various reasons we know Paul's letters to Timothy are forgery but one is that originally Paul was very supportive of women in the church but by the 2nd century Christians were not into woman having power so they forged supposed letters from Paul taking power away from women. The writing styles as well as historical mistakes have shown Acts to be false.

originally posted by: chr0naut


37 years is 10 years less than 47, with the short duration of the average life span, 10 years would have been a very significant difference.

The dates that the 1st gospel is written is not known but it's safe to say they were not written until 1 human lifespan had passed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Classicist Thomas J. Sienkewicz did other rankings of numerous Heroes and among those that scored quite high were actual historical persons like Tsar Nicholas II (14), Mithridates VI of Pontus (22) Muhammad (17), Jesus (18), and Buddha (15). Fictional characters such as Harry Potter (8) scored lower."
They use the same mythological and allegorical literary devices in news and media articles today. It doesn't make the news fake, it is just use of idiom.

No, the news does not report parables. The leading bible archeologist William Denver, straight up - The Bible is NOT HISTORY.

Carrier goes on to describe many of the parables, borrowed mythology and so forth in his free lectures. I can lead one to information if one wants to remain ignorant have at it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

We see a similar thing happening with Christianity. They had some revelations and predictions and then lumped them on to this new character Jesus who seems to be a mix of previous messiah religions plus borrowingg from the Jewish angelology stories about an angel named Jesus who dies and was reborn in the lower firmament.


Christians don't believe that. It doesn't describe Christianity at all. It is total nonsense.

Christians believe whatever they want, I'm listening to historians and archeologists and that is EXACTLY what they say.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Also, Jewish angelology had no mention of an angel called Jesus (another piece of nonsense you are suggesting):


... and the person of Jesus and the historical period into which He fitted, clearly preceded the Church in history

Too much to explain, I'll have to let Carrier do it:

www.youtube.com...

go to 17:15

There was a firstborn son of god etc.. in Jewish angelology in the OT as Carrier explains.
I didn't get this at first and actually wrote to Dr Carrier and he answered my question, but he's clear enough here.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Actually, Zoroastrianism and Judaism share common concepts and the suggestion that has been made is that Melchizedek, the King of Salem (prefiguring Jerusalem) and whom Abraham honored, was possibly Zoroastrian. The thing is that there were specific events which had numerous spectators in the Hebrew accounts and there are also marked differences between between Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

You don't understand at all how religious syncretism works.
The dying and rising messiah cult was the "thing" and slowly made it's way through various religions. We know for sure of 5 or 6 that for sure pre-date Christianity but likely they all do. Each time they change a little bit but add elements of the religion they are being adapted into.
They all feature personal salvation and baptism. It's a Jewish version of the messiah cult, with Jewish salvation and a Jewish savior.

Jesus simply replaces the temple and the need to attend daily temple rituals. The fig tree parable is explaining how the temple is no longer needed now that we have Jesus to forgive our sins.
Jewish metaphysics didn't even have an afterlife never mind Jesus/Satan rivalries before it was adapted from the messiah cults.

originally posted by: chr0naut
You keep saying that there are no outside sources or that they are fake and nether assertion is supported by evidence, historical record or even valid reasoning.

It's accepted that every mention of Jesus outside of the gospels is either a forgery or simply referencing the already known gospels. End of story.

originally posted by: chr0naut

As Elaine Pagels has never published any work called "The Lost Gospels", I am unlikely to accept your statement.

The basis of Pagel's suppositions were 12 documents in a single clay jar, the Nag Hammadi 'library'. Several of the Nag Hammadi documents are known fakes, purporting to be Classical and Hermetical manuscripts but with content entirely different that the true originals (and most childishly abbreviated).

Not true.

The book is The Gnostic Gospels, I'm holding it right now in fact. The Nag Hammandi contained over 52 texts including the gospel of Thomas. This was Pagels source material.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Yes, there are over 40 'gospels' but they were hardly 'originals'.

Only the four canonical Gospels (and possibly the Gospel of Thomas) had a 1st Century origin.

There are people writing "gospels" to this day, that does not mean that they are either valid or canonical.

The canonical Gospels are not discredited in some way because of the existence of later (and largely discredited) wannabe's.

We do not even know who wrote the gospels.
John has multiple endings, Mark has 2 endings, signs that stuff was added later. We don't know which Acts is the original.
The author of John may have been Lazarus - internal evidence says it's source was the "beloved of Jesus" which was only Lazurus.
We also know Lazurus was invented to invert the parable of Lazurus and Luke.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Honestly, most Classicists consider the extra-Biblical evidence to be strong and consistent with secular historical writings of the same period.

All mentions of Jesus outside of the gospels are forgery or referencing gospels which adds no further proof thta a man named Jesus ever existed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The majority of scholars see Jesus as a historical person. They also accept the extra-Biblical evidence at face value because of the impossibility of faking it so completely.

Your appeal to the unnamed authority of 'scholarship' is pretty weak argument.

Evidence for Jesus is what I'm talking about. There is none outside of the gospels and they themselves are just mythology.
I already mentioned the leading bible based archeologist and the only PHd to do a historicity study on Jesus since 1926.
The top 2 best sources possible in scholarship, the absolute highest authority and you actually still say "unnamed"??

You are just going in circles and resorting to lies now.

Again, NO PHd has done a historicity study on Jesus since 1926 because it's a dangerous field to go into.
Now one has. His study has concluded the mythicist theory to be the most likely theory.

I already said his work has not been accepted by the field yet, this will take time.
He has however gone up against dozens of scholars in public debates and destroyed all of them.

originally posted by: chr0naut

We have coins, architectures, frescoes, tiled mosaics, grafitti, tombs and bones, manuscripts, histories and we have the Bible, too.

The only evidence for Jesus is in the gospels. The leading biblical archeologist says the Bible is not history.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of Christians who are geologists:

I'm sure the majority of Christian geologists know that the Earth isn't 600 years old. That's just the fundamentalist and most of those are not scientists. In fact probably just a handful who are scientists would actually believe in a 6-10,000 year old Earth.

originally posted by: chr0naut
You seem to say that Jesus didn't exist and then that he did?

If Jesus was historical, He existed. If he wasn't historical, then he didn't.

Well when I use "the field" as a reference I can't use that to back up the mythicist theory so I have to give in to historicity. But ultimately Carrier has proven mythicism, it will just take time to become accepted scholarship.
One big reason the field doesn't accept mythicism (the only real reason) is the books already published on the theory are crank. Carrier has also shown how the current mythicist theories are either wrong or actually delusional, so scholarship is weary. It's a hotbed of mis-information that Carrier has helped to clear up.

originally posted by: chr0naut
He also performed miracles. He claimed to be the Son of God and was proclaimed to be the Son of God, by God himself and this was witnessed by several disciples.

I know, so did Romulus. Aren't they great!

originally posted by: chr0naut
Having a Ph.D does not mean that someone is right or truthful. Carrier's only claim to fame is that he denies what numerous other Ph.D accredited academics don't deny.

Yet archaic gospel text IS truth??

I sat through over 20 hours of debates checking out Carriers work and allowing it to be challenged by all of the great Christian debaters. He won.

originally posted by: chr0naut

That isn't true. You are talking about 60,000 pieces of documentary evidence that somehow someone has faked, every single one, and have done so without anyone getting wise. Not to mention new archaeological finds which agree with the current conservative view that Jesus was historical.

Which archeological find is that?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Carrier's work has been debunked by historians. He has even managed to try and misrepresent Christianity as believing something it doesn't, based upon what Carrier attributes to the Jewish faith, but doesn't even exist there either.

Source please. Nothing he has presented at any debate was debunked. You are making stuff up.

originally posted by: chr0naut
He has said things that are obvious and transparent falsehoods, inventing facts and figures which disagree with the authoritative sources and implying that all other academics agree with him when it is a matter of record that the vast majority don't.

Carrier has also rejected all evidence, Christian and secular, Biblical and extra-Biblical, as being fictional. This has also left him in a position of having no evidence for his theories, either. A fact that any reasoning person can see but that he and his sycophants don't seem to realize.

The academic community won't even give Carrier's publications recognition. Why?

Whoops, now you're just copy-pasteing Christian rhetoric. I've seen it. I even give apologetics a chance but there is nothing of substance there. Point out one obvious falsehood, go ahead.

Show me what fact did he invent?

See Carrier already admits many times that the mythicist theory isn't accepted yet by scholars for various reasons but the reasons are mislead. He always explains why. Once you start hearing things like " he and his sycophants" you know it's just ad-him personal attack Christian fundamentalist crap.

Your copy-paste says Carrier says scholars agree with him when they don't. But he's always honest about that. You've been caught copy-pasting a lie. I did think you were above the fundamentalist hate speech line of reasoning.

I've wasted time investigating that end, it's just for butt-hurt Christians who want to pretend like Carrier isn't an actual scholar.