No, you don't want that. I gave you an article sourced by Richard Carrier, complete with books and page numbers. You can't argue with that so you're pretending that I didn't give sources and then in other answers you admit there were sources but say they were "bad" sources.
Why would I want to mislead? I'm passing on information, what you do with it is your choice.
You know you could google "Kata Matthaion euangelion" and "gospels" and figure it out for yourself. You will just wank around in every direction and use denial or slander no matter what source I give so why waste my time?
Not mine, I use only scholarship.
Like I said he mentions only the resurrection, no aspects of his Earthly life Paul mentions only knowledge from scripture and revelation (hallucination).
Isn't my perspective, it's Phd historians perspective.
There is no debate. You already lost. I gave sources about other historical savior demigods which you ignored. Again, you can easily corroborate the Greek at the beginning of each gospel.
When facts go against your beliefs you just play games. Go back to the essay and show me one source which is wrong.
The "issues that come from the facts" are denial and silly games.
I'm not putting any cents in. I told you you lost, you haven't dealt with the sources on an issue we were discussing. The end.
Because back then there were people called historians who give actual information about the time.
Tell me where Justin Martyr says most people were not superstitious. Use one of these "sources" you are barking for.
Even in the bible the non-believers are believing OTHER gods.
That's funny, by "careless attitude" you mean an educated person who doesn't blindly follow superstitious nonsense and actually reads what historians say about the era.
I just gave you an essay sourced from a Phd yet you keep pretending like I just made a bunch of stuff up? The denial is thick.
Maybe you "know your not speaking a factor with your slanted spin" because the article was written by a historian. DER!!!
Again, when I have facts you pretend like I don't care then say you DO care so you can't possibly talk with me. Hilarious.
Now, if I say "who cares" about some ridiculous bible passage that makes perfect sense because the bible has ZERO credibility. There are no outside sources that support it.
Any mention of the religion are just talking about members of the cult.
Using gospel passages proves nothing so there is no debate there. The historical arguments are relevant. Unfortunately you can't deal with historians. Fine. You lose.
I can see that educated people annoy you. All those facts.
The worst part is when I say "it doesn't matter" I'm talking about YOU. Any source I use YOU will ignore. You are not interested in a historical debate. So it does not matter.
Now you're pretending like "oh it matters to me!" Ok, then go back, look at any source and then tell me why you don't believe it.
You just looked at like 100 sources and shut them down in probably 1 second. In fact I'm pretty sure you didn't even look at anything. You just came here and asked for more sources.
Is that right? Hmm let's see are there any mentions of physical resurrection of demigod Osiris’s body? There are. Where? Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, =
Utterance 676.
Now that essay gives dozens.
I could post 100 more essays and endless history from historians and you'll just say "they are crap". You are a fraud.
I just gave you a Greek passage that is so easy to look up and you got all paranoid and said I'm trying to mislead you? Done. I'm not spending time looking it up again.
Carrier mentions it here at 8 min
Oh no, I'm not at suboxonezone level, oh no?!
Using gospels as a historical source is hilarious. It's fan fiction.
Except not Greek because then I'm trying to mislead you.
Also not the 50 sources in the article right.
Please stop kidding yourself. Any sources I post you will call crap. Your not looking for a debate. I really don't know what your doing?
ok, please see my other post with all the sources and page numbers then tell me why you don't agree with them
If you want to say "those are crap" then explain why.
-(hint, I already know you are not going to deal with any historical facts.)
I don't know but I definitely don't care if you want to believe in Hercules, Osirus or Jesus.
Jump right in.
Oh is that right?
Let's go back to the top of the post,
In Greek the gospels start with euangelion kata -
The Gospel of Matthew = [To euangelion kata Matthaion]
which is how Greek writers said "as told to me by"
Let's confirm that with a Ph.D. bible historian,
"Because regardless of how codex or scroll tags worked,
Kata Markon simply means “as told by Mark,” not “as written by Mark” (a different Greek phrase was used for the latter). It is a designation of source, not authorship. Which, as a title, generally was something invented
ad hoc (otherwise you would have the author, “as written by,” saying he got his information from Mark and who Mark was and so on). In any case it never means “written by.”
Christians (alone in antiquity, and solely in this case) quickly conflated these concepts because they needed the sources to be the authors themselves, and legends grew advocating that view (e.g. it’s obvious Irenaeus, and everyone else, got this idea from Papias, who says he learned it from dubious oral lore, even though Papias was a stupid and gullible man, as Eusebius reports, and what he wrote about the Gospels is either false or not even referring to our Gospels, since we can see it fails to match them).
Amazing Proofs of Jesus! • Richard Carrier