Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, but I don't find your explanations plausible, either. Let's go over your ideas.

> The Christos tradition common to almost all religions [of a horus sun deity being nailed to wood or a cross and resurrecting after 3 days] was separate to Yeshua the man who overturned tables. Then the two were merged to implement a new religion

It's unarguably true that the death and resurrection motif is common in other religions: Tammuz, Baal, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Adonis, Persephone, Attis, and Krishna. It's a long list, so one might assume Christianity is just one of many or even a copy-cat theology.

The problem with the theory is that there is no reasonable way to conclude that the central truth of the gospel is derived from them.

[list][*] The deaths involved battles among the gods, not the death of God Incarnate at the hands of His creatures. The example that comes closest is that of Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu, who is killed in battle but experiences no comparable resurrection.
[*] All except Krishna are associated with the agricultural cycle, thus the gods and goddesses in question are seen to die and rise again every year. This is a far cry from the death of Christ once for all and His resurrection and ascension into heaven, never to die again, all of which have nothing to do with the life cycles of an agrarian economy.
[*] All fall clearly into the realm of myth rather than history. The Bible treats Jesus as an historical figure, as did His followers from the very beginning. No such continuity of historical verification exists for any of the gods, goddesses, or demigods listed above.
[*] While many of the accounts above can demonstrably be tied to one another, as their obvious similarities indicate, no such connections exist between the biblical narrative and any of these stories.
[*] Critics who list similarities between these narratives and the biblical account tend to take isolated pieces from different narratives having their sources in different times and places. This is particularly true with the Egyptian myths (you mentioned Horus in particular as an example in your post).
[*] Despite the claims of skeptics, many of the ancient narratives would not even have been known by the Christians of the first century. The sources in which the stories are found were buried long before the New Testament era and were only uncovered by archaeologists in the last 150 years.
[*] Baal, Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14), and the Egyptian gods, though not by name, are pointedly rejected in Scripture rather than being imitated or adapted.[/list]

Contrary to these examples, the death of Jesus as an historical reality is well-attested, both in the Bible and in extrabiblical sources.

The other piece, of course, is that there is no evidence that what you call "the Christos tradition common to all religions" was merged to the (prophet) Yeshua in syncretism.

> perhaps Paul was too early,

Except, as I've mentioned in previous posts, Paul often and repeatedly mentions Jesus's miracles. It is thought by many that Paul's reference to the resurrection in the early verses of 1 Corinthians 15 is a belief that goes back to within 2-5 years of Jesus's death.

The idea that maybe "Paul is too early" doesn't hold water.

> perhaps Paul saw the christ/savior tradition and the great spiritual leader/king as separate, and they were at the time.

Again, there is no evidence that "they were at the time" separate traditions. If you have a reference to verify this theory of yours, I'd be glad to read it and discuss it further.

> perhaps Paul did no miracles, Yeshua did none

The evidence we have is that both Paul and Yeshua did miracles. If we are following the evidence where it leads, the reality of miracles from both of them is the hypothesis that stronger evidence must disprove. You can theorize all you want to bring about the conclusion you want to generate, but I believe that the reality of their miracles is the stronger case unless you presuppose the impossibility of miracles, but if that is the case, you have sacrificed objectivity for bias.

> perhaps Paul referred to the tradition of the christ saviour figure raising from the dead and at other times referred to the man [relabelled as christ] and it was lost in translation and 2000years of dust?

This theory isn't plausible because of the abundance of manuscripts and fragments that are available, showing us that nothing was "lost in translation and 2000years of dust." Since we have close to 6000 such pieces of evidence, some of them quite early, as well as very early references to them by the Apostolic Father and Church Fathers, the "we screwed it all up; he never meant that at all" approach is not convincing.

> Now that is plausible to a materialist.

Of course it is. If you ignore the evidence at hand to follow an opinion that suits your worldview, of course it's both consistent and plausible.

> Can I prove it? not a chance.

And this is the rub. But we are not looking for proof. In historical pursuits like this, proof is not the issue. What we are looking for is the preponderance of evidence and the weight of evidence to infer the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence we have.

I'm glad to talk some more with you. There are a lot of subjects on the table here.

OK funny debate. Neither has convinced me.
I suggest a 3rd answer at the risk of offending all!....
The Christos tradition common to almost all religions [of a horus sun deity being nailed to wood or a cross and resurrecting after 3 days] was separate to Yeshua the man who overturned tables. Then the two were merged to implement a new religion and bring in all the other pagans that observed some of the same feast days and traditions. So:
*perhaps Paul was too early,
*perhaps Paul saw the christ/savior tradition and the great spiritual leader/king as separate, and they were at the time.
*perhaps Paul did no miracles, Yeshua did none (but perhaps converting the entire roman world to his new way of thinking was a feat/miracle and causing political upheaval too) but some miracles were later attributed to them to fit-out the new christos religion
*and perhaps Paul referred to the tradition of the christ saviour figure raising from the dead and at other times referred to the man [relabelled as christ] and it was lost in translation and 2000years of dust?
Now that is plausible to a materialist. No divine magics required here. Can I prove it? not a chance. If I spent a lifetime reading this stuff and learnt greek then maybe. Try archaix.com for more evidence since J.Breshears is a chronologist and scholar.

Well, you're the one who mentioned that Josephus would be a credible and reliable source, and then when I mention him, you discredit your own writings. There's something fishy going on here.

As you are well aware, the works of Josephus have been gone over and over with a fine-toothed comb, analyzed and evaluated. In the Testimonium Flavianum, there are phrases that are widely regarded as authentic, and others that are widely regarded as edits planted in later by Christians. I will quote the Testimonium Flavianum, and [b]bold[/b] the suspicious readings that are considered to be additions/edits by Christians after the fact:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, [b]if indeed one ought to call him a man[/b]. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [b]He was the Christ[/b]. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. [b]He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him[/b]. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

You should know that all surviving manuscripts of the Testimonium Flavianum contain the same versions of this passage, with no significant differences. So we have three options:

1. Josephus wrote all of it.
2. Josephus didn't write any of it.
3. Some of it is his, and some of it was edited later.

Nobody of any merit agrees with #1 or #2. What is most intriguing, pertaining to our conversation, is that the line about Jesus doing miracles is one of the lines that is widely considered to be authentic Josephus., and not a later addition by Christians.

From another source I read that, even though Josephus was not a witness to these events (and many events about which he wrote), but used sources, that he handled his sources according to the best standards of his day, and is by-and-large considered a good Hellenistic historian.

So, at least in the conversation before this one, you yourself considered Josephus to be a reliable source. Many historians respect his writing, but they are fairly well aware of where he diverged from the truth. It is also fairly well established where later Christians added to what Josephus had originally wrote. Given these analyses, it seems quite safe to say that Josephus stands as a reliable extra-biblical witness that Jesus was known for his miracles, affirming the very real possibility that he did them.

Most people believe that Christians edited Josephus' writings. This is what Christians did back then: they made shit up.

Luke as Reliable Historian:

Sir William Ramsey, archaeologist: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. … Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."

Regardless of how many quotes I can reference, there are biblical minimalists who will claim the opposite. Aside from the quotes, one must merely study the text of Luke's gospel to verify his historical acumen. We could go through the gospel piece by piece, but that's tedious. It will lead us to confirm what I'm saying, but it would take us a long time.

You discredit any "Christian" evidence, which is odd. Is it illegitimate to have a Democratic write a biography of Barack Obama? Is it illegitimate to have an American write a history of America? Of course not. But you seem to want a person who saw Christ's miracles, heard him teach, saw him after the resurrection, but says "It wasn't real". That's what doesn't make sense. If we had a person who said "I saw Christ after his death, he definitely rose from the dead, and I talked to him, but I don’t believe any of it," we'd think he was a moron. But if we have someone who has examined the evidence and becomes convinced, you won't accept anything he says. That's ridiculous.

Is Luke biased? Of course he is. He has an explicit agenda. John is explicit about his bias as well. Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But bias doesn’t mean you’re wrong. If it were, then we can’t believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don't come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples' lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus' claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins, for example, also has an objective, an agenda, a bias. Luddeman has an agenda. We don't reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased.

But if you want a quote from Josephus about Jesus' miracles, here's an excerpt that should suffice: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. [b]For he was one who performed surprising deeds[/b] and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

According to whom is Luke a "reliable historian?" To Christians? Go figure. I wonder why that is. You know what actual evidence I could give that would refute that? Josephus. Josephus was a reliable historian and he does not mention Jesus' miracles or the miracles of anyone else (at a time when, supposedly, according to the NT, they were happening all over the place).

That's a reliable historian. Not someone who's out to convince you to believe in Jesus.

Of course I'm skeptical of things. We have to be, or we're complete idiots. The issue at hand is this: Luke says that Paul did miracles, and Luke is considered to be a reliable historian. Paul says that Paul did miracles, and those are in books that are widely, if not universally, regarded as books that Paul did indeed write. You have no evidence to the contrary, but only a skeptical opinion that denies the two pieces of evidence we do have. On what evidentiary basis do you deny that Paul did what the writings claim he does? It would seem to me it's on the unfounded presupposition that such things are impossible. Again, that's not a logical stance but an opinion. You have no leg to stand on.

You really think that Paul saying that he could do signs and wonders is proof that he could? It doesn't even say what signs and wonders he's talking about. Are you not skeptical of anything or do you basically believe everything you read?

> he didn't actually have them or could do them

First of all, this is clearly an opinion, and a biased one at that. You have no evidence contrary to the evidence we have. The evidence we have, as I gave you, is in Rom. 15.19 & 2 Cor. 12.12, and that is evidence in direct contradiction to what you are saying. In other words, you are contradicting Paul's own words that "he didn't actually have them or could do them." You are making up what you are saying with no evidence to back up your position.

You say that if you could heal people and bring people back to life, you'd be doing it every day, everywhere. So would Paul if that power were under his control. He only had the power as it was granted to him, since it was God's power, and not Paul's. He didn't have power at his disposal on his schedule, but only as God gave it to him. This was the case with all the miracle workers, except Jesus, in the Bible.

He didn't like to speak of his "spiritual experiences and powers" because he didn't actually have them or could do them. If I could heal people and bring people back to life, I'd be doing that every day, everywhere. People wouldn't doubt whether I was an "apostle" (which they did in Galatia). They'd be pretty damn sure that I was something, at the very least.