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.
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?
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.
100% consensus of historians, not theologists? Citation?
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.
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?
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.
100% consensus of historians, not theologists? Citation?
In many blogs on this subject, he also calls you guys “mythicists” who look foolish.
"Mythicists"? No one here has denied that he existed.
Still waiting to hear what the consensus is among independent historians.
What about “there’s 1-49% uncertainty” do you not understand?
1) That wouldn't be "denying" he existed, just saying that you aren't certain.
2) No one said there is a 49% chance he existed. You are misquoting the PP. The PP was merely defining the term "likely" for the people who seem unfamiliar.
"Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. "
Deny: "he doesn't exist"
Not 100% certain: "most likely he existed"
100% certain: "he definitely existed"
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?
Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.
Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence.
If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.
We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?
Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved.
So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
100% consensus of historians, not theologists? Citation?
In many blogs on this subject, he also calls you guys “mythicists” who look foolish.
"Mythicists"? No one here has denied that he existed.
Still waiting to hear what the consensus is among independent historians.
What about “there’s 1-49% uncertainty” do you not understand?
1) That wouldn't be "denying" he existed, just saying that you aren't certain.
2) No one said there is a 49% chance he existed. You are misquoting the PP. The PP was merely defining the term "likely" for the people who seem unfamiliar.
"Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. "
Deny: "he doesn't exist"
Not 100% certain: "most likely he existed"
100% certain: "he definitely existed"
You have the definitions down now?
Bart and thousands of other scholars say Jesus definitely existed. That’s 100%.
Nobody cares about your endless attempts to define uncertainty because you’re in a fringe minority when you say “likely” or “most probably.” Although you can’t even see that your uncertainty opens up the possibility of denial. Clearly you’d rather derail about definitions than accept the scholarly concensus.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?
Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.
Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence.
If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.
We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?
Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved.
So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it.
Translation: pp doesn’t like that even Bart the leading atheist says the scholarly concensus is on 100% that Jesus existed. So instead they want to quibble about who is a “scholar” and issue endless demands for more and more evidence.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?
Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.
Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence.
If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.
We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?
Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved.
So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it.
Translation: pp doesn’t like that even Bart the leading atheist says the scholarly concensus is on 100% that Jesus existed. So instead they want to quibble about who is a “scholar” and issue endless demands for more and more evidence.
Plus try to redefine < 100% over and over. Way more rewarding to fight over semantics than to admit you’re in an extreme fringe.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?
Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.
Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence.
If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.
We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?
Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved.
So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it.
Which ones? Why do you blindly believe that this guy says?
I have yet to see a single citation for an independent historian who is 100% certain.
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.
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?
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.
100% consensus of historians, not theologists? Citation?
In many blogs on this subject, he also calls you guys “mythicists” who look foolish.
"Mythicists"? No one here has denied that he existed.
Still waiting to hear what the consensus is among independent historians.
What about “there’s 1-49% uncertainty” do you not understand?
1) That wouldn't be "denying" he existed, just saying that you aren't certain.
2) No one said there is a 49% chance he existed. You are misquoting the PP. The PP was merely defining the term "likely" for the people who seem unfamiliar.
"Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway. In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. "
Deny: "he doesn't exist"
Not 100% certain: "most likely he existed"
100% certain: "he definitely existed"
You have the definitions down now?
Bart and thousands of other scholars say Jesus definitely existed. That’s 100%.
Nobody cares about your endless attempts to define uncertainty because you’re in a fringe minority when you say “likely” or “most probably.” Although you can’t even see that your uncertainty opens up the possibility of denial. Clearly you’d rather derail about definitions than accept the scholarly concensus.
Of course, the Christian theologists think he existed.
Which independent/unbiased historians say 100% certainty? Is that truly the consensus? I haven't seen a single citation yet.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?
Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.
Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence.
If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.
We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?
Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved.
So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it.
Translation: pp doesn’t like that even Bart the leading atheist says the scholarly concensus is on 100% that Jesus existed. So instead they want to quibble about who is a “scholar” and issue endless demands for more and more evidence.
Plus try to redefine < 100% over and over. Way more rewarding to fight over semantics than to admit you’re in an extreme fringe.
Seems like some people were having a tough time understanding some basic terms. If PPs weren't continually misinterpreting them then there wouldn't have been any discussion about them.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?
Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.
Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence.
If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.
We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?
Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved.
So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it.
Translation: pp doesn’t like that even Bart the leading atheist says the scholarly concensus is on 100% that Jesus existed. So instead they want to quibble about who is a “scholar” and issue endless demands for more and more evidence.
Should be pretty easy to line up those independent/unbiased opinions. If there is a consensus that he 100% existed.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?
Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.
Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence.
If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.
We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?
Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved.
So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it.
Which ones? Why do you blindly believe that this guy says?
I have yet to see a single citation for an independent historian who is 100% certain.
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/
Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.
One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"
"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"
Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.
So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.
Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.
In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}