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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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/

"pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.

[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.

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.

Would you mind posting your reference source for those definitions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

"pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.

Again, as we have discussed multiple times, you don't get to decide. The consensus among modern scholars is that Jesus is a real, historical figure. There is no doubt among these scholars that Jesus existed. Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't make it "likely." That's like saying you believe in the flat Earth because you reject the consensus that the Earth is round and all the evidence is faked.

[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:

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.

Wow, get a grip. Not getting in the gutter with you. You effed up with your original range of 51-99 and by misreading “certainty” for “uncertainty”, and now that it’s too late to backtrack you think you can slide by with bluster, curses and more insults. Also, I do statistics for a living and your original text re 51-99 certainty equalling 1-49% uncertainty was plain on its face.

I suspect you’re also enraged that leading atheist Bart Ehrman disagrees with you and calls people like you “foolish.” See the post from the previous page, which you’re obviously desperate to get away from by turning this into a mud-slinging contest. I’ll repeat it. Bart said: “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...ist-a-historian-makes-his-case

Bart Ehrman goes for 100% certainty. Why not 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.

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.

Would you mind posting your reference source for those definitions?

+1

- an economist

[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.

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.

Would you mind posting your reference source for those definitions?

DP here.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/odds.php
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Probability
https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/odds
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/odds.php
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-calculate-odds
https://www.zippia.com/advice/how-to-calculate-odds/
https://www-statisticshowto-com.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.statisticshowto.com/how-to-calculate-odds-of-winning/
https://www.actionnetwork.com/betting-calculators/betting-odds-calculator

...and on and on and on...

Pages and pages explaining how odds work. Basic maths.

Please wear a helmet if you go outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

"pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.

Nope. As Bart Ehrman pointed out, Paul knew Jesus’ brother James and his disciple Peter. As Bart says, if Jesus didn’t exist, his brother James would have said something about 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:

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.

Would you mind posting your reference source for those definitions?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most%20likely
"more likely than not"

https://www.nagwa.com/en/videos/657108270465/#:~:text=If%20an%20event%20is%20certain%20to%20happen%2C%20the%20probability%20is,it%20is%20likely%20to%20happen.
"If an event is certain to happen, the probability is equal to one. If it is equally likely that an event happens or does not happen, we say there is a 50-50 or even chance. If the probability is less than this, we say it is unlikely to happen. And if it is greater than this, it is likely to happen."

[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:

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.

Would you mind posting your reference source for those definitions?

DP here.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/odds.php
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Probability
https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/odds
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/odds.php
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-calculate-odds
https://www.zippia.com/advice/how-to-calculate-odds/
https://www-statisticshowto-com.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.statisticshowto.com/how-to-calculate-odds-of-winning/
https://www.actionnetwork.com/betting-calculators/betting-odds-calculator

...and on and on and on...

Pages and pages explaining how odds work. Basic maths.

Please wear a helmet if you go outside.

This is hilarious. Or, you’re not even trying and just trolling now.

None of this has anything to do with your bogus ranges with their fake precision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

"pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.

Nope. As Bart Ehrman pointed out, Paul knew Jesus’ brother James and his disciple Peter. As Bart says, if Jesus didn’t exist, his brother James would have said something about it.

Not all of us follow Ehrman as diligently as you do.

Not 100%.

[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:

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.

Would you mind posting your reference source for those definitions?

+1

- an economist

So you are most likely a crappy economist.

[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: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

One time, in college, my professor said the Book of John was faked.

Ok. But regardless, it's a biography by an eyewitness. You just believe it's fake. And your professor.

[Anonymous]

I think this is an excellent moment to point out again that there is zero evidence of Jesus' divinity.

Zero.

As in none.

Nada.

Zilch.

Zippo.

Thats's "nikto" for you comrades. Or никто.

None.

[Anonymous]

This is elementary school level probability.

[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:

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.

Would you mind posting your reference source for those definitions?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most%20likely
"more likely than not"

https://www.nagwa.com/en/videos/657108270465/#:~:text=If%20an%20event%20is%20certain%20to%20happen%2C%20the%20probability%20is,it%20is%20likely%20to%20happen.
"If an event is certain to happen, the probability is equal to one. If it is equally likely that an event happens or does not happen, we say there is a 50-50 or even chance. If the probability is less than this, we say it is unlikely to happen. And if it is greater than this, it is likely to happen."

Nobody cares about your Google statistics.

The figure used by a vast scholarly concensus is 100% certainty that Jesus existed. Not “most likely” and not “51% to 99%.” One hundred percent. Read that again. One hundred percent. Even leading atheist Bart Ehrman thinks there’s 100% certainty and people who argue otherwise look foolish.