If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

Only if the atheist understood the subjunctive construction “only if” would she understand that the original sentence implies the negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

Zero PPs have denied his existence.

Seems like you have trouble with facts/reality.

OP seems to believe Christ is a myth. That's why this thread exists. But we all know the question is moot.

Mythology can be built up around a real person, making them larger than life in the retelling of their lives. PP can believe that Jesus existed as a real person and also believe that the story of Jesus as a god born of a virgin who performed miracles has been mythologized. Basically, one can believe that Jesus existed as a person and deny as myth that he was a god or the messiah.

Unlike many modern-day religions such as Christanity, the narrative or story of the Greek myths was usually not written down*. And because of this, it’s transmission relied on the oral tradition- that is being passed on through word of mouth. Greek mythology, quite literally, was spread by word of mouth between different city-states (poleis) and was therefore likely to be mixed or conflated with other local stories until it blossomed into the fully developed stories we know today.
In contrast, the texts of Christianity were written down at a very early stage in the development of the religion, mainly to maintain the consistency of the narrative throughout the different geographical areas where the religion spread. Thus, unlike the myths of the Greeks, the New Testament is quite a precise recollection of the life of Jesus and his followers because it was written by people who were actually there or who had a direct connection to those who were there- the Evangelists and the authors of the epistles (St. Paul etc.).

Christianity was spread by followers of Jesus trying to sway people to adopt the religion either by preaching from a written, standardised text. Ultimately it spread quickly and people genuinely believed in it enough to practise it even though it was illegal. It was only in 313 AD after Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Rome that it was legalised and ultimately, 10 years later it became the official religion of the Great Roman Empire.

The Greek Empire collapsed in 146 BC, although quiet echoes of its religion still reverberate to this day. These echoes may be limited to media, product names, fiction books, etc. from my research. In stark contrast the Christian family of religions have much greater influence on our society, although waning in the Western world. Throughout the middle ages and up until the modern era, most people's lives, in Europe anyway, revolved around Christianity.

As we all know there are many major gods in Greek mythology and they all control a different aspect of life. This makes Greek mythology a polytheistic religion (it has multiple gods). Greeks would communicate with their gods in temples, praying to them. They would also give sacrifices to the gods, or sometimes even throw entire festivals to honour them. All of this was to try to please the gods so they would not get angry and seek revenge against the humans.
On the other hand, Christianity only has one God, making it monotheistic. Albeit, Christianity has multiple saints, who are patrons of different aspects of life, it is important to note that these saints do not control as much as they act as intercessors between man and God. Christians pray to a specific saint to ask God to help them with a particular problem. In Christianity, the written text of the New Testament, centres on the life and works of Jesus Christ, who is God made man and as such represents the earthly form of the same montheisiastic God..
Another difference between the two religions is that the Greek gods had flaws that made them more similar to humans. They had tempers and they often held grudges. This made the followers of the religion not want to be like them but, instead learn from them and their shortcomings, frequently through fear. In contrast to the flawed gods of Greek mythology, Jesus is portrayed as a man who is to be aspired to, more so than the Greek portrayal of a god; who the audience learns from, rather than listens to.

Most religions these days use their buildings as places to congregate and worship their god(s); a centre for prayer and learning about thor religion. This includes Christianity. Church is a place to go to practise your beliefs and reaffirm your connection with God. Greek temples however were not used in this way.
They were meant to serve as a house for the statue of the god that was kept in there, or to the Greeks, symbolically, the actual god.

The Greek creation myth goes roughly like this: Gaea and Uranus — primordial beings that mysteriously appeared out of nothing — didn’t create the world so much as become the world. Gaea became the earth, and Uranus became the sky. Gaea and Uranus’s grandchild, Zeus, carried on “creating” by divvying up the portions of the world among his five siblings and the children they eventually had.

In stark contrast to Gaea and Uranus, there was never a point where God didn’t exist; He always was and always will be. Additionally, He didn’t rely on anyone else to create the world. He simply spoke, and it happened, and it was all very good.


In the myths, the Greek gods were absolutely awful to mortals. Zeus only cared about mortals if they were young and pretty. Hera only interacted with mortals when Zeus cheated on her with them. Athena turned a skilled weaver into the first-ever spider just because the weaver was a little cocky. Apollo murdered the mortal hunter Orion with a scorpion because he was jealous of how much time Orion and Artemis were spending together.

God, on the other hand, is completely invested in our lives and doesn’t toy with our fates for His own amusement. Instead, He loves us and stays with us from the moment He puts us together in the womb to the moment we die and join Him in Heaven.

Museums are chock-full of statues and carvings of the Greek gods. Those statues were made to draw attention to the power and might of the Greek pantheon. And since the Greeks’ main objective in life was to avoid angering the gods, you basically couldn’t walk ten steps without seeing the idol of some god or other.

The fundamental problem with idols is the mindset behind them: The assumption that a human can or should capture even a small part of a deity’s greatness with a lump of metal, stone, or wood.

God and Paul make it very clear that the Lord is more real and bigger and better than even the most beautiful, intricate statue of Zeus or Aphrodite could be. He lives, breathes, moves, loves, and acts, all of which idols and the gods they represent could never hope to do because they are lifeless and false.

The mindset of the Greek gods is a rather bleak and hopeless one: The gods themselves are amoral, selfish, prideful beings who either ignore mortals or wreak havoc on their lives to punish minor offenses. Worshiping such fickle gods leads to a life dominated by the fear of angering some deity or other.

God brought His son back from the dead so that humanity could be released from that fear. Because Jesus died for us, rose again, and invited us all to believe in Him, we have a way out. And that’s what Paul offers to the Athenians: A Savior who loves and rescues them the way their gods would never deign to, even if they were real.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/why-did-paul-compare-christianity-to-greek-mythology.html?amp=1

It's polite to provide a TLDR when you're writing a novel in the comments, especially when it's barely related to the post to which you're directly responding. Who mentioned Greek mythology, or mythology as religion at all? I argued above that real people can be mythologized. To mythologize is to create or promote an exaggerated or idealized image of (that's the dictionary definition). We mythologize people all the time. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that Jesus was a real person who was mythologized through exaggerated stories and idealizations. Believing Jesus existed does not necessitate the conclusion that he was divine.

DP with a translation: “I can’t be bothered to read the post so I’ll just repeat what I’ve already posted five times.”

I did read the post in full and it was not at all related to what I had claimed. The history of Greek mythology as a religion has nothing to do with a person being mythologized. Our novelist friend either misunderstood what I'd said (thus necessitating a repetition of the point) or didn't read beyond the word "myth" and just went with an incorrect assumption about my point.

As for his claims about Christianity and Jesus' divinity, he argues:

the texts of Christianity were written down at a very early stage in the development of the religion, mainly to maintain the consistency of the narrative throughout the different geographical areas where the religion spread. Thus, unlike the myths of the Greeks, the New Testament is quite a precise recollection of the life of Jesus and his followers because it was written by people who were actually there or who had a direct connection to those who were there

This has been debated throughout the thread and I won't rehash it here, other than to say that the "early stage" of writing down Jesus' story and the "direct connection" of those authors to Jesus himself is not definitive.

Our novelist also compared and contrasted Christianity with Greek mythology, which, again, no one brought up in the first place. He did this multiple times: pantheism vs. Christian saints, Greek temples vs. churches, Greek gods' interactions with humans vs. God's relationship with us, idol worshipping vs. Jesus worshipping, etc.

He concluded:

The mindset of the Greek gods is a rather bleak and hopeless one: The gods themselves are amoral, selfish, prideful beings who either ignore mortals or wreak havoc on their lives to punish minor offenses. Worshiping such fickle gods leads to a life dominated by the fear of angering some deity or other.

God brought His son back from the dead so that humanity could be released from that fear. Because Jesus died for us, rose again, and invited us all to believe in Him, we have a way out. And that’s what Paul offers to the Athenians: A Savior who loves and rescues them the way their gods would never deign to, even if they were real.

I would argue that a religion that teaches as a core tenant that we are born sinful (original sin) and our souls must be saved from eternal damnation is also rather bleak. The threat of hell for disobeying God or just not believing in Jesus even if you're a good person otherwise doesn't really sound like a "release from fear."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

What would constitute "direct evidence?" Perhaps if an eye witness wrote down their account in a book, and we have that book? Like, the Bible?

Were any the “eye witnesses” literate?

People who can’t read or write- their eyes still work.

Despite this schooling system, many children did not learn to read and write. It has been estimated that at least 90 percent of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine in the first centuries CE could merely write their own name or not write and read at all, or that the literacy rate was about 3 percent.

So it seems unlikely that the “eye witnesses” write down their accounts.

The fact that Christianity spread so quickly by oral tradition—Paul’s original job just 20 years after the cruxifixion was to stamp it out—speaks to how prevalent and compelling this oral tradition was.

Paul learned about Jesus from his own and Jesus’ contemporaries.

As the original generation started to die, and after the destruction of the temple in 70AD, there was more impetus to put everything in writing. Mark probably predates that though. In fact, there’s a lot of disagreement—some scholars think Matthew was written only 10 years after Jesus’ death, others say much longer.

Oral history was the common way of communicating at the time, because even if a select few could read and write, the masses mostly couldn't. Most mythologies were orally transmitted. Greek mythology, for example, is still known today, but we don't consider it divine anymore. Something being a compelling oral narrative doesn't make it True (with a capital T).

Just curious. How many times are you going to repeat essentially the same posts about mythologies?

Clearly the people who were talking about Jesus in the first decades after his death saw and heard something they thought was special. Or someone they trusted talked about something they saw that was special. We’re not talking about the centuries-long development of Greek mythology here.

“Christianity” evolved over centuries. There are no primary sources.

There are testimonies from within a few decades of Christ’s life. The folks in 300AD who made decisions about various things absolutely thought they were basing it on the “gospel truth.” But you already knew that.

Right. It evolved over centuries.

An eyewitness of Jesus wrote a biography of Jesus in a book that we have today.

If you regardless doubt he existed, and if you doubt the genuineness of the book, well, in Jesus's words, "they have eyes but cannot see."

Personally, I am descended from the first group to be called Christians in Antioch, Syria. Acts 11:26 - "it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians." We still exist today - Syrian Antiochian Christians. It's not imaginary or make believe. We have an Antiochian church locally here too.

The eyewitness did not write the biography. Someone later in history wrote it.

I believe that you and your church exist. I believe there are Christians in Antioch. There is evidence for that.

John wrote the Book of John. An eyewitness account.

So we have a written account by an eyewitness. But, now people want to debate writing the book really happened. 👍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

Translation: I have no idea what the he!! the subjunctive is so I'm going to pretend that never happened. Instead I'm just going to double down on my assertion that there's some or even considerable (up to 49%) doubt. Whether I express it as an "only if" or a range like 51%-99%. I'll also toss up some dust about mutually exclusive blah blah blah because I want to sound more erudite than I am. And I pulled that range of 51%-99% out of my butt, instead of using a range like 75%-99% or 95%-99%, because it fits my personal narrative even though I know I'm way, way outside the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. Why? Scholars be damned, I just can't stomach the vast consensus that Jesus existed with certainty better than 51%. But if you challenge me, I'll insult you.

[Anonymous]

Even Bart Ehrman says: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed."
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

Ehrman also says this: But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

49% uncertainty? Bart Ehrman would like to have a word with you.

"And Bart says this (https://www.str.org/w/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus): If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism [that Jesus is a myth], because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

What would constitute "direct evidence?" Perhaps if an eye witness wrote down their account in a book, and we have that book? Like, the Bible?

Were any the “eye witnesses” literate?

People who can’t read or write- their eyes still work.

Despite this schooling system, many children did not learn to read and write. It has been estimated that at least 90 percent of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine in the first centuries CE could merely write their own name or not write and read at all, or that the literacy rate was about 3 percent.

So it seems unlikely that the “eye witnesses” write down their accounts.

The fact that Christianity spread so quickly by oral tradition—Paul’s original job just 20 years after the cruxifixion was to stamp it out—speaks to how prevalent and compelling this oral tradition was.

Paul learned about Jesus from his own and Jesus’ contemporaries.

As the original generation started to die, and after the destruction of the temple in 70AD, there was more impetus to put everything in writing. Mark probably predates that though. In fact, there’s a lot of disagreement—some scholars think Matthew was written only 10 years after Jesus’ death, others say much longer.

Oral history was the common way of communicating at the time, because even if a select few could read and write, the masses mostly couldn't. Most mythologies were orally transmitted. Greek mythology, for example, is still known today, but we don't consider it divine anymore. Something being a compelling oral narrative doesn't make it True (with a capital T).

Just curious. How many times are you going to repeat essentially the same posts about mythologies?

Clearly the people who were talking about Jesus in the first decades after his death saw and heard something they thought was special. Or someone they trusted talked about something they saw that was special. We’re not talking about the centuries-long development of Greek mythology here.

“Christianity” evolved over centuries. There are no primary sources.

There are testimonies from within a few decades of Christ’s life. The folks in 300AD who made decisions about various things absolutely thought they were basing it on the “gospel truth.” But you already knew that.

Right. It evolved over centuries.

An eyewitness of Jesus wrote a biography of Jesus in a book that we have today.

If you regardless doubt he existed, and if you doubt the genuineness of the book, well, in Jesus's words, "they have eyes but cannot see."

Personally, I am descended from the first group to be called Christians in Antioch, Syria. Acts 11:26 - "it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians." We still exist today - Syrian Antiochian Christians. It's not imaginary or make believe. We have an Antiochian church locally here too.

The eyewitness did not write the biography. Someone later in history wrote it.

I believe that you and your church exist. I believe there are Christians in Antioch. There is evidence for that.

John wrote the Book of John. An eyewitness account.

So we have a written account by an eyewitness. But, now people want to debate writing the book really happened. 👍

I took a whole course in college about how John didn't write John. You should have picked one of the Synoptic gospels for your example.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-John

[Anonymous]

To me, and apparently to Bart Ehrman, the fact that Paul knew Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter is pretty dispositive.

49% uncertainty is beyond silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

49% uncertainty? Bart Ehrman would like to have a word with you.

"And Bart says this (https://www.str.org/w/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus): If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism [that Jesus is a myth], because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish."

Hey liar, who claimed that number of 49% certainty? Just you, you lying troll. Obviously beaten, you have resorted to the time honored tradition of repeating lies often enough so they become indistinguishable from the truth. How (NOT) christian of you. Your Jesus would be ashamed to have you as a follower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

49% uncertainty? Bart Ehrman would like to have a word with you.

"And Bart says this (https://www.str.org/w/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus): If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism [that Jesus is a myth], because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish."

Hey liar, who claimed that number of 49% certainty? Just you, you lying troll. Obviously beaten, you have resorted to the time honored tradition of repeating lies often enough so they become indistinguishable from the truth. How (NOT) christian of you. Your Jesus would be ashamed to have you as a follower.

49% UNcertainty. Read it again. It’s math. You gave a range of 51% to 99% certainty. This implies you think UNcertainty is 1% to 49%.

Your insults should be embarrassing to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

49% uncertainty? Bart Ehrman would like to have a word with you.

"And Bart says this (https://www.str.org/w/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus): If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism [that Jesus is a myth], because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish."

Hey liar, who claimed that number of 49% certainty? Just you, you lying troll. Obviously beaten, you have resorted to the time honored tradition of repeating lies often enough so they become indistinguishable from the truth. How (NOT) christian of you. Your Jesus would be ashamed to have you as a follower.

49% UNcertainty. Read it again. It’s math. You gave a range of 51% to 99% certainty. This implies you think UNcertainty is 1% to 49%.

Your insults should be embarrassing to you.

No I did not you stupid bastard. I said a number less than 100% was still "likely" which is where the scholarship agrees. And I said that could include any number from 51% to 99%, as any high school stats class will teach you.

You are trying to anger people and get them to give up so you get the last word for your lies. Your first objective is working - I am angry about your stubborn and monumental stupidity - but while I am far less stupid then you I am just as stubborn, so every time you LIE I will call you a LIAR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

Translation: I have no idea what the he!! the subjunctive is so I'm going to pretend that never happened. Instead I'm just going to double down on my assertion that there's some or even considerable (up to 49%) doubt. Whether I express it as an "only if" or a range like 51%-99%. I'll also toss up some dust about mutually exclusive blah blah blah because I want to sound more erudite than I am. And I pulled that range of 51%-99% out of my butt, instead of using a range like 75%-99% or 95%-99%, because it fits my personal narrative even though I know I'm way, way outside the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. Why? Scholars be damned, I just can't stomach the vast consensus that Jesus existed with certainty better than 51%. But if you challenge me, I'll insult you.

DP. Seems like you struggle with reading comprehension and math.

Definitely = 100%
Most likely = 51% to 99%
Equally likely = 50%
Unlikely = 1-49%
Definitely not = 0%

"Only if we had 100% certainty" = we don't have 100% certainty

This thread is not moot, because we don't have 100%. It is most likely, which is less than 100%.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"

There is evidence (fact). Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual.

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any. But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive.

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in.

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?

DP here. It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over.

OK fine. And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being.

Nope. If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that.

Lies. Wrong. And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.

+1

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural.

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot.

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence.

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie.

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence. I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction. Mission accomplished.

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t.

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.

49% uncertainty? Bart Ehrman would like to have a word with you.

"And Bart says this (https://www.str.org/w/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus): If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism [that Jesus is a myth], because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish."

Hey liar, who claimed that number of 49% certainty? Just you, you lying troll. Obviously beaten, you have resorted to the time honored tradition of repeating lies often enough so they become indistinguishable from the truth. How (NOT) christian of you. Your Jesus would be ashamed to have you as a follower.

49% UNcertainty. Read it again. It’s math. You gave a range of 51% to 99% certainty. This implies you think UNcertainty is 1% to 49%.

Your insults should be embarrassing to you.

PP was simply defining the term "most likely" for you since you seem to be struggling with basic math phrases.