At 5:31 in the video, He says "But what I had to accept it as being, which it undeniably is, is a set of ancient historical documents. And I knew that historians had criteria that they could apply to determine whether or not these documents are trustworthy. So those are the kind of people I pursued." The people he pursued had titles like Professor of New Testament and Bishop. One might conclude something else without that assumption and investigative path. There are alternative theories like:
Just want to point out that a little ways down in the comment section for the you tube video Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, posted by ph1l in the previous post, and based on the book with the same title by Joseph Atwell, there is a link to a "non- Christian take down of this ridiculous theory." https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664 Richard Carrier's response begins as follows: "Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university."
I almost responded to ph1's post with the question: "Yeah, but are the alternative theories credible?" However, I chose not to because I was unwilling to review the video, the reason being that I have no desire to waste my time with such nonsense. I say that without seeing the video because I'm informed enough about the facts to know that anything arguing against them is pure zaniness. But someone can always say, "How can you dismiss the presentation without even looking at it?" There are ALWAYS alternative theories to anything! I've come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, those who are inclined to believe them either don't know enough for the contradictory evidence I might show them to make it obvious how silly the claims are, or simply want to believe the theories and are therefore going to stick with them no matter how much evidence I present otherwise. Either way, with the outcome already a forgone conclusion, I've more-or-less ceased responding at all. Thankfully, there are people like you who are still willing to give it a shot.
Many thanks for your response. My intention has been to invite you to expand on the "evidences" for why you have religious faith. However, I feel unless you can reply directly to the points I'm raising, there is a danger this turns into nothing but reiteration, which is not going to take our conversation anywhere. When I raise objection to something you post, I do think it would help me understand more how what you saying might not be so unreliable, unsound, or unreasonable, if you would tackle the substance of my objections, rather than simply repeat or revise the original point you made. Despite your extensive reply we are still unfortunately at... The Bible is not true just because the Bible says it is true. 'Prophets' are not true just because they tell a same or a similar tale. 'Prophets' are not true just because they write their prophesy by dating it hundreds of years prior to the prophesy they then write as fulfilled. "Witnesses" are not made true just because the witness says what they write is true. "Witnesses" are not made true by merely describing what they write or others say, is that which an imaginary God told them to write. The phrase 'false prophets' stands for good reason. You brought up a universe from nothing. You didn't present an argument for an eternal universe which you've done now. The universe actually exists, which I suggest counts as a pretty strong "evidences" for it. On the other hand, God can only be imagined, and accordingly cannot even be shown to exist, let alone shown to be eternal. That's quite unlike how the universe could well be eternal, which you have supplied far more sound and credible evidence for here. In the way Lee Strobel who you linked to, and the serial proselytizing expiated does, y'all put the horse before the cart, by first presuming the answer as the means to handle the question. In this and my previous posts to you, I've given some reason why what you've presented is not logical or reasonable and it would be cool if you could address those reasons more directly. Nevertheless, thank you again for the respectful discussion.
I'm inclined to accept this as more likely than not, at least for the traditional God as it is being told by organized religion. There may be some greater being, energy, call it what you like, but the God who stands in judgment of his own creation handing out rewards and punishment is ridiculous. Only a human looking for some way to even the score for all the injustices in the world would come up with that.
Thank you, also, for keeping the discussion respectful. Before I respond to your reply, it would help me out to understand your position better if you would explain what basis you have for your belief that: Stu wrote: 'Prophets' are not true just because they write their prophesy by dating it hundreds of years prior to the prophesy they then write as fulfilled. I showed 2 proofs that the prophets DID write in their time, and you did not provide any evidence whatsoever to contradict my evidences. My evidences were: 1. By using a Jewish, non Christian site, I showed that both the prophecy of Micah and the prophecy of Isaiah are contained in the historical documents that Jews accept as coming from before the period of time of Christ, generally accepted to be about 700 B.C. This is strong proof, just as strong as any proof can be that would hold up in a court of law, because of the amount of people, even the entire Israeli nation that held to these Scriptures before Jesus was born, while Jesus was on earth and up to the present time. 2. By implication, this provides another strong PROOF, that the prophecies could not have been written after Jesus was born because the majority of the Jewish leaders and Jewish people have NOT been followers of Jesus during the time Jesus was alive on this earth and in the years between then and now and they would NOT have accepted tampering with their ancient Scriptures by Jesus, His disciples or the Christians that later came to follow Him. 3. If indeed those prophecies were written at the time that they are generally believed to be written in, the two I specifically mentioned were written around 700 B.C., then the evidences that there are specific events that apply directly to what happened to Jesus, both at His birth (a mere person can't dictate his own birthplace) and His death, as well as many other prophesies that show similar specific details that came to be fulfilled in Jesus, become proofs that are also MIRACULOUS in that God foretold details of the plan for Jesus to come to be our Savior. Point number 3 is the crux of the matter. Evidences point to it. However, it becomes a heart issue as well, because if one believes point number 3 is correct simply based on evidences, then when one examines what Jesus taught, one finds that that there is the issue of personal reconciliation with God needed and that comes through faith in Jesus. Another way to put it is that "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13 To ignore such a great plan of salvation has severe consequences, because it is rejecting the sacrificial death of One who is described as being the Ruler and existing before, coming from ancient days. As shown in a previous post, Micah 5:2 says, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” Micah 5:2 Jurors can choose to believe or disregard a witnesses account, or any piece of evidence. They are supposed to make that choice by taking into consideration all the factors presented and discerning what is reliable and what is unreliable evidence. In the same way, I have presented facts, even the same quality of evidences as would stand up in a court of law. However, you are dismissing them as unreliable evidences, yet you have not disproven points 1 or 2, or even addressed them other than to say: "by dating it hundreds of years prior to the prophesy." As stated earlier, I will respond to the rest of your reply after you clarify your reasons for not accepting these evidences.
No, my opinion is not based on scripture. I don't know is there is or isn't a God as described in the Bible. It seems unlikely to me, but I do not know one way or the other with certainty. I respect your right to believe what you will, but IMO evidence is lacking for conclusive proof on either side of the argument. This is a debate I rarely engage in the message board type forum. Too many misconceptions and misunderstandings occur. I prefer this topic, which truly interests me, to be discussed face to face with people of varying opinions. For that reason I'll leave you to your discussion with others and meant no disrespect to your beliefs.
If this topic truly interests you, then I'm glad I opted to respond to your question (i.e., I thought only God judges and rules. What's with all these other people passing judgement and dictating rules?) As for disrespecting my beliefs, I'm not sure to what degree that is possible, since (other than my believing that God truly exists) you probably are not all that aware of what my beliefs are, as implied by your stating that you "suppose we all need something to hang on to during difficult times," which has absolutely nothing to do with why I believe heaven exists, and perhaps reflects your comment that "too many misconceptions and misunderstandings occur." My goal was simply to clarify that other people judging and ruling in no way violates God's plan as described in the Bible (because your question gave me the impression that you thought it did). (P.S. If I felt you were being disrespectful, I wouldn't have bothered responding at all, so no problem in that area as far as I'm concerned.)
Some people are not open to reviewing alternate theories, and I respect that you appear to agree with from this book