theres a difference between healing and miracles. yet again your trying to confuse the issue... healing is perfectly possible, miracles are not.

No, you're unable to answer that without looking hypocritical, and to dress it up as not playing into Islamaphobia is very desperate, and quite honesty, a low shot.

"Atheist opinion" - tin hats again. Not an Atheist opinion, just a pragmatic one.

Your opinion is one drenched in religious bias, is it not?

And once again, incorrect inference.

Of course miracles are possible. A placebo is a miracle in that we have no explanation in biology or science for it.

lol... placebos are not miracles

What I've presented is what almost all credible historians conclude about Jesus. That he existed. That includes atheist historians and secular writings.

No bias there.

What I've presented is that historians cannot say anything about the supernatural and Jesus' connection to it. That's out of the purview of academic scholarship.

No bias there.

Anything beyond that is a matter of opinion.

you think that walking on water was a placebo?

you think turning water into wine was a placebo?

you think that feeding the 5000 was a placebo?

Cool. Now you not only know that Jesus didn't exist but how placebos cause cures.

Please enlighten me.

No as I was referring to healing.

What you referenced is beyond the purview of historians. Historians cannot comment reasonably on the supernatural.

Whether those events occurred is only a matter of opinion.

What a ridiculous comparison!

Oh noodkle now both you and mushy know how placebos work and what chemical changes they make in the body.

Please do enlighten me and the scientists who don't know.

Well, mushy knows a bit more than you, in that he knows Jesus didn't exist.

You've inferred MUCH more than what scholars and historians agree on, and then tried your best - without much credibility - to infer why totally implausible events may have been possible, by barking 'placebo'.

And yes, you have presented bias - "remarkable" being one example.

i take it then that 'credible' historians are the ones who think a jesus existed. those that dont think he existed or doubt it are not credible? and you claim no bias?

all you have done is ignore a blog that presents the known facts , and hidden behind what your chosen historians believe but without identifying which version of jesus they think existed.

you have presented nothing to refute the possibility that jesus didnt exist, nor that he could be at least in part a construct or embellishment.

time to call it a day!

Right, so if something cannot CURRENTLY be explained, that means that by comparison, anything could be possible? Is that right?

Or should all those Scientists studying the placebo effect just give up, put it down to being a "miracle" and then conceding that all impossibilities are possible?

Utterly absurd.

Au contraire. I reported what historians from the first century onward, wrote about him.

And what his reputation was. Why I kept italicizing reputation, lol.

Whereas you directly claimed embellishments without evidence other than your opinion. While not liking scholars to have opinions that are at least informed by historical documents.

Exactly.

now you are making things up.

Then you are agnostic about Jesus existing?

Because you've tried (unsuccessfully) to make a strong case that he did NOT exist and was constructed.

One article from a biased blog isn't evidence that all the scholars are wrong and you're right.

If you claim Jesus was constructed, you need evidence.

Where is your evidence. Who constructed him and how did they do it?

Who lied?

Written from first-hand experience? No.
Written from eyewitness accounts? No.

Written decades after, and, in your own words, "from people who knew people who were there"... Yes.

And you don't see why that's the problematic? Right.

Speaking of miracles - apparently, Jesus died within a few hours of being hung on the cross (or not a cross, depending on which scholar you listen to - if at all according to other religious 'testimony'), when people usually took days to die.

Or the miracle of the Virgin Birth. Highly, highly implausible - virtually impossible (and that's being liberal), or the manger story, which is, according to most scholars, just a story. It's all looking very dubious, but hey, placebo effect.

But of course as dubious as it all is, saying the timeline of Jesus life was embellished - well - just an opinion. Apparently.

Okay now it's the last time in addition to the last time a few times ago with mushy, I will explain to you how historians draw conclusions when there is lack or physical evidence and lost writings.

Because you haven't got it despite my explaining it. Maybe read on the subject and come back?

Are historians saying they can prove the Virgin Birth now?

You and mushy keep confusing what scholars can study with the supernatural.

Your own opinion is just that. An opinion. Nothing to do with research.

As opposed to the opinions of religious theologians and biased opinions of 'miracles'? Or the totally implausible details of his life recorded in "Holy" texts that are contradictory to one another? Many of them sharing parallels with other theologies and stories before them? And you deny the stories about Jesus were constructed?

What was that about bias?

I think rather it is you who is confused. Or just in denial.

I can only say I agree with Ehrman when he says that atheists who go on about the Gospels not being reliable, are as bad as the religious fundamentalists who take everything in the Bible literally.

There is no reason, for example, for a scholar to think that Luke lied about the earlier writings (now missing) about Jesus.

There is no reason to assume that the early writers, like Paul, were constructing things just to fool people and convince them of something not true. This was their perception of Jesus.

If you, like mushy, claim these writings were constructed, not genuine, then you need to show evidence they were.

Otherwise I don't have to accept them.

You can be in denial that a person such as Jesus could exist.

Mushy, what you don't get is that it's totally illogical to ask me to refute the possibility that Jesus didn't exist.

In future there will be the possibility that you and I didn't exist. Or the possibility that we are computer simulations.

That is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Quite different though from your claim that Jesus was a construct, a deliberate invention.

Isn't it.