Because all humans are made in the image of God…

[Cypress]

Nope. Your misguided attempts to get your hearsay classified as "history" failed miserably!

Jesus is the most well attested person of the first century in literary sources. He is more well attested in literary sources than Emperor Tiberias.

The existing evidence convinces me that that it's more probable than not that the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Paul, John, Luke, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp are the attestations of eyewitnesses, or of people who interrogated the eyewitnesses. By the standards of ancient history, that is a bonanza of sources.

Analysis of the probability Matthew, Mark, Luke, John authored or dictated the canonical gospels.

Gospel	Evidence for authorship by apostle or evangelist	Alternative explanation​	Probability the gospel was written or dictated by the person the gospel is named after​
Gospel of Mark	Mark is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as a secretary to the apostle Peter and the author of a gospel. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	Pappias was confused about what he was told by people who knew the disciples of Jesus. Pappias was referring to a different Mark, not the Mark of the canonical gospel.	More probable than not​
Gospel of Luke	Luke is identified by Bishop Iranaeus in mid to late second century as author of the gospel of Luke. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	First surviving attestation for the authorship of Gospel of Luke is about 100 years after it was written, reducing the reliability of this attestation.	As probable as not​
Gospel of Matthew	Matthew is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as an author of an Aramaic-version of a gospel.	Even if Matthew wrote an Aramaic-version of a gospel, Greek translators in the late first century or second century could have completely re-worked it.	As probable as not​
Gospel of John	Bishop Iranaeus in mid-second century was told by Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John) that John authored a gospel. That makes Iranaeus only one person removed from a disciple of Jesus.	Iranaeus could have been confused about what Polycarp told him, or it could have been a different John, not the apostle John, who authored the canonical gospel.	Probable​

Nope. We've been over this. There are no first-hand accounts. None! Jesus cannot be officially declared an historical person!

There are no eyewitness, first-hand accounts of Alexander the Great. The oldest surviving account we have of Alexander was written four hundred years after he died.

You only hold Christian authors to a standard you hold no one else.

This is a tell sign that you have an agenda that is based on an emotional reaction.

 

[Monad Portal]

Satan is also a human invention.

do you believe in evil?

 

[Monad Portal]

Jesus is the most well attested person of the first century in literary sources. He is more well attested in literary sources than Emperor Tiberias.

The existing evidence convinces me that that it's more probable than not that the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Paul, John, Luke, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp are the attestations of eyewitnesses, or of people who interrogated the eyewitnesses. By the standards of ancient history, that is a bonanza of sources.

Analysis of the probability Matthew, Mark, Luke, John authored or dictated the canonical gospels.




There are no eyewitness, first-hand accounts of Alexander the Great. The oldest surviving account we have of Alexander was written four hundred years after he died.

You only hold Christian authors to a standard you hold no one else.

This is a tell sign that you have an agenda that is based on an emotional reaction.

good point.

fuck Alexander the great.

he ain't shit.

 

[domer76]

do you believe in evil?

C’mon dude, make your fucking point.

 

[IBDaMann]

Jesus is the most well attested person of the first century in literary sources.

Jesus is the least documented wrt first-hand accounts ... at zero documents. There is literally no one with less first-hand account documentation. It's like you are forcing people to think of Jesus as an urban legend.

The existing evidence convinces me that that it's more probable than not that the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Paul, John, Luke, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp are the attestations of eyewitnesses,

First, you have to explain how you established this probability.
Second, you have to admit that there is no probability because it's just your opinion.
Third, you still have to get a time machine to travel back in time and verify your claim.

You have no first-hand accounts.

There are no eyewitness, first-hand accounts of Alexander the Great.

There are countless accounts, just not in the form of a manuscript. The coins he minted, of which we have thousands:

There are many royal decrees such as the following:

ΩΣΕΠΕΣΤΕΙΛΑΝΟΙΠΡΕΣΒΕΥΤΑΙΕΚΠΕΡΣΙΔΟΣ
ΟΙΥΠΕΡΦΙΛΙΠΠΩΝΚΑΙΤΗΣΓΗΣΠΡΕΣΒΕΥΣΑΝΤΕΣ
ΩΣΒΑΣΙΛΕΑΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΝΚΑΙΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ
ΠΕΡΙΑΥΤΩΝΕΚΡΙΝΕΝΤΗΝΑΡΓΟΝΕΡΓΑΖΕΣΘΑΙΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥΣ
ΗΑΥΤΟΥΕΣΤΙΝΧΩΡΑΚΑΙΠΡΟΣΤΕΛΟΥΣΙΦΟΡΟΝ
ΕΙΝΑΙΑΥΤΟΙΣΤΗΝΑΡΓΟΝΟΡΙΣΑΙΔΕΤΗΝΑΡΓΟΝ
ΧΩΡΑΝΑΥΤΟΙΣΦΙΛΩΤΑΝΚΑΙΛΕΟΝΝΑΤΟΝΟΣΟΙ
ΔΕΘΡΑΙΚΩΝΕΠΕΙΣΒΕΒΗΚΑΣΙΝΤΗΣΧΩΡΑΣΤΗΣΑΡΧΑΙΑΣ
ΗΝΤΟΙΣΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΙΣΕΔΩΚΕΝΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣΦΙΛΩΤΑΝ
ΚΑΙΛΕΟΝΝΑΤΟΝΕΠΙΣΚΕΨΑΣΘΑΙΕΙΠΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ
ΕΠΕΙΣΒΕΒΗΚΑΣΙΝΤΟΥΔΙΑΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΟΣΤΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ
ΗΥΣΤΕΡΟΝΕΠΕΙΣΒΕΒΗΚΑΣΙΝΕΙΔΕΥΣΤΕΡΟΝΕΚΧΩΡΕΙΝ
ΑΥΤΟΥΣΕΞΕΛΕΙΝΔΕΦΙΛΩΤΑΝΚΑΙΛΕΟΝΝΑΤΟΝ
ΕΚΤΗΣΑΡΓΟΥΠΛΕΘΡΑΔΙΣΧΙΛΙΑ
ΤΗΣΔΑΤΟΥΧΩΡΑΣ

ΠΡΟΣΛΑΒΕΙΝΑΠΟΤΑΥΤΗΣ
ΜΕΤΡΗΣΑΝΤΑΣΔΥΟΣΤΑΔΙΟΥΣΤΗΝΜΕΝΑΛΛΗΝ
ΝΕΜΕΣΘΑΙΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥΣΟΣΑΔΕΤΟΙΣΘΡΑΙΞΙΝ
ΠΑΡΑΤΟΥΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥΔΕΔΟΤΑΙΚΑΡΠΙΖΕΣΘΑΙΤΟΥΣΘΡΑΙΚΑΣ
ΚΑΘΑΠΕΡΚΑΙΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣΠΕΡΙΑΥΤΩΝΔΙΑΤΕΘΗΚΕΝΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥΣ
ΔΕΕΧΕΙΝΤΗΝΧΩΡΑΝΤΗΝ
ΩΣΟΙΛΟΦΟΙΕΚΑΤΕΡΩΘΕΝΕΧΟΥΣΙΝ
ΟΣΗΕΣΤΙΠΕΡΙΣΕΙΡΑΙΚΗΝΓΗΝΚΑΙ
ΔΑΙΝΗΡΟΝΝΕΜΕΣΘΑΙΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥΣΚΑΘΑΠΕΡΕΔΩΚΕΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣ
ΤΗΝΔΕΥΛΗΝΤΗΝΕΝΔΥΣΩΡΩΙΜΗΔΕΝΑΠΩΛΕΙΝΤΕΩΣ
ΗΠΡΕΣΒΕΙΑΠΑΡΑΤΟΥΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥΕΠΑΝΕΛΘΗΙΤΑΔΕΕΛΗΕΙΝΑΙΤΩΝ
ΦΙΛΙΠΠΩΝΕΩΣΓΕΦΥΡΑΣ


Translation:

When the ambassadors returned from Persis,
those who had represented the interests of the Philippians and their land
before King Alexander, and Alexander rendered judgment concerning them:
that the Philippians are to work the argos land which belongs to them,
and that they are to pay tribute for the argos land.

And he appointed Philotas and Leonnatos to define the boundaries
of the argos land for them.

And as for the Thracians who have encroached upon the ancient land
which Philip had given to the Philippians,
Philotas and Leonnatos are to investigate
whether they encroached before Philip’s boundary decree
or after they encroached.

And if they encroached after, they are to withdraw.

And Philotas and Leonnatos are to remove
two thousand plethra from the argos land …


… of the land of Daton to add from this land,
measuring out two stades.

The rest of the land is to be held by the Philippians,
but whatever has been granted to the Thracians by Philip,
the Thracians are to harvest,
just as Alexander has ruled concerning them.


And the Philippians are to hold the land
… as the hills lie on either side …


And as much land as lies around Siraike and Dainēron,
the Philippians are to possess,
just as Philip granted.

But the timber in Dysōros is not to be sold
until the embassy returns from Alexander.

And the marshes are to belong to the Philippians
as far as the bridge.


Alexander the Great founded cities whose founding was documented. We have the cuneiform documented death of Alexander the Great by the Babylonians, so we know the day he died.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

do you believe in evil?

 

[Cypress]

There are countless accounts, just not in the form of a manuscript!

Nope, that's not what you said. You are just backtracking and trying to modify what you wrote. You said you could only demonstrate historicity by the first hand testimony of eyewitness.

Nope. We've been over this. There are no first-hand accounts. None. Jesus cannot be officially declared an historical person,

By your standards, for all you know Alexander the Great could have been a legendary figure, like King Arthur or Achilles. Someone whose history is totally warped by myth and legend.
There are no eyewitness, first-hand accounts of Alexander the Great. The oldest surviving account we have of Alexander was written four hundred years after he died. That is a lot of time for legend and myth to evolve.

You only hold Christian authors to a standard you hold no one else.

This is a tell sign that you just don't want anything in the New Testament to be true for emotional reasons.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope, that's not what you said. You are just backtracking and trying to modify what you wrote. You said you could only demonstrate historicity by the first hand testimony of eyewitness.

The person who stamps a coin is a first-hand witness. The coin of Alexander is a stamped first-hand account of Alexander. The coins were stamped during his lifetime.

The scribe or whoever wrote Alexander's royal decree wrote a first-hand account of his decree.

Jump to telling what part of this you are having difficulty understanding. The death announcement was a first-hand account of the death of Alexander the Great.

By your standards, for all you know Alexander the Great could have been a legendary figure,

I stipulate that Alexander the Great was a legendary figure.

Someone whose history is totally warped by myth and legend.

I'm sure there was much exaggeration interwoven in his tales, yet we have first hand accounts, many of them. We have the coins he minted. We have the historical evidence that you do not have for Jesus.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that your religion is a matter of faith. Really, talk to @gfm7175; he can set you straight.

There are no eyewitness, first-hand accounts of Alexander the Great.

Yes there are. I just gave you a bunch.

The oldest surviving account we have of Alexander was written four hundred years after he died.

Nope. We have the Cuneiform death announcement that was published the day he died.

You only hold Christian authors to a standard you hold no one else.

You are trying to create firsthand accounts out of nothing.

 

[Cypress]

good point.

fuck Alexander the great.

he ain't shit.

In the first and early second century, surviving literary sources from around the Mediterranean shows that the historical existence of Jesus was widely accepted by Jews, Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Gentiles, Pagans, Gnostics.

There is no significant competing literary sources that claim the historical Jesus was a myth, a story, or a fabrication.

The body of evidence all points to a widespread belief and presumption that Jesus of Nazareth was a real rabbi who was executed by the Romans.

Even the esteemed atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says anyone who seriously questions the historicity of Jesus is a fool

 

[Cypress]

The person who stamps a coin is a first-hand witness. The coin of Alexander is a stamped first-hand account of Alexander. The coins were stamped during his lifetime.

The scribe or whoever wrote Alexander's royal decree wrote a first-hand account of his decree.

Jump to telling what part of this you are having difficulty understanding. The death announcement was a first-hand account of the death of Alexander the Great.


I stipulate that Alexander the Great was a legendary figure.


I'm sure there was much exaggeration interwoven in his tales, yet we have first hand accounts, many of them. We have the coins he minted. We have the historical evidence that you do not have for Jesus.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that your religion is a matter of faith. Really, talk to @gfm7175; he can set you straight.


Yes there are. I just gave you a bunch.


Nope. We have the Cuneiform death announcement that was published the day he died.


You are trying to create firsthand accounts out of nothing.

People who make coins or carve statues are not eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses were the standard of firsthand testimony you claimed could only uniquely demonstrate historicity.

Mount Rushmore was carved be people who had never witnessed George Washington, and who had never even interviewed people who did know George Washington.

 

[IBDaMann]

People who make coins or carve statues are not eyewitnesses.

How is the guy who stamps King Alexander's coins not a first-hand witness to Alexander being a real, living person? Remember, we're talking about first-hand accounts of a real-life person rather than hearsay. A sculptor who carves a statue of a posing subject is certainly a first-hand witness of the subject being a real-life person. If there were a sculpture made of Alexander the Great during his lifetime, it would, at a minimum, be evidence to be considered (due to the nature of statues), but the first-hand account does not have to be paper-n-pen.

Eyewitnesses were the standard of firsthand testimony you claimed could only uniquely demonstrate historicity.

Show that I specified that and I will apologize for misspeaking, but I deny that I ever wrote that.

Mount Rushmore was carved be people who had never witnessed George Washington, and who had never even interviewed people who did know George Washington.

Exactly. They were not carved during the lifetimes of the subjects. Mt. Rushmore can be discarded as an account of those individuals.

 

[IBDaMann]

The body of evidence all points to a widespread belief and presumption that Jesus of Nazareth was a real rabbi who was executed by the Romans.

The zero first-hand accounts give greater weight to Jesus being an urban legend, if you want to go there. I fail to see why faith in Jesus is somehow insufficient.

 

[FastLane]

About 60 years after the death of Jesus Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews where he described Jesus as a real person who did remarkable things..

 

[Cypress]

The zero first-hand accounts give greater weight to Jesus being an urban legend, if you want to go there. I fail to see why faith in Jesus is somehow insufficient

This is the stupidest discussion I've had in months

The guy who strikes the image of George Washington on a quarter is not an eyewitness to George Washington.

The people who built the Jefferson memorial were not witnesses to Thomas Jefferson.

You made explicitly clear that only firsthand eyewitnesses testimony can establish someone's historicity.

That leaves you with the uncomfortable fact that the oldest documentary evidence we have for Alexander the Great was not written until four centuries after Alexander died.