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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"?

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

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.

Sigh. Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Probability is probability. Not open to interpretations not matter how much you want to believe alternate definitions.

At one point, didn't we all agree that he "most likely" existed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"?

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Did you notice the time stamps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"?

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Did you notice the time stamps?

More bs. Nobody cares if the time stamps are several decades old. Independent scholarship is independent scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

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.

Sigh. Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Probability is probability. Not open to interpretations not matter how much you want to believe alternate definitions.

At one point, didn't we all agree that he "most likely" existed?

Writing “Jesus definitely existed,” as Bart and thousand of other independent scholars believe, means 100%. 100%. No room for probability, so you can stop talking about it now.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"?

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Did you notice the time stamps?

More bs. Nobody cares if the time stamps are several decades old. Independent scholarship is independent scholarship.

I meant the timestamps of the posts. They were posted at the same time.

[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/

Bumping this again because atheist pp’s seem desperate to get away from it, with endless gish-galloping into the meanings of words like “probability” and “scholar.”

[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: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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

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.

Sigh. Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Probability is probability. Not open to interpretations not matter how much you want to believe alternate definitions.

At one point, didn't we all agree that he "most likely" existed?

Writing “Jesus definitely existed,” as Bart and thousand of other independent scholars believe, means 100%. 100%. No room for probability, so you can stop talking about it now.

Why is this so hard to understand?

He said thousands of scholars, meaning theology scholars. Not thousands of independent scholars. If you read what they actually say, they say that they "accept" the historicity. Or they don't believe the denial arguments. That's a little different than saying 100% certainty.

To have 100% certainty you need better evidence.

[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/

Bumping this again because atheist pp’s seem desperate to get away from it, with endless gish-galloping into the meanings of words like “probability” and “scholar.”

I've responded to it twice. You seem desperate to get away from my responses.


Again...your quotes:
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"

"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"


Again...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.

[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: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.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

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.

Sigh. Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Probability is probability. Not open to interpretations not matter how much you want to believe alternate definitions.

At one point, didn't we all agree that he "most likely" existed?

Writing “Jesus definitely existed,” as Bart and thousand of other independent scholars believe, means 100%. 100%. No room for probability, so you can stop talking about it now.

Why is this so hard to understand?

He said thousands of scholars, meaning theology scholars. Not thousands of independent scholars. If you read what they actually say, they say that they "accept" the historicity. Or they don't believe the denial arguments. That's a little different than saying 100% certainty.

To have 100% certainty you need better evidence.

Puhleeze. Scholars doesn’t mean just theology scholars.

Now you don’t just want to derail into what scholar means, you also want to derail into whether “accept” means agree with the certainty or somehow holds out some sliver of denial. Or whether “don’t believe the denial arguments” means, contrary to the words’ face value, that there’s actually still some sliver of denial. Oh wait, none of what you’re suggesting makes any sense.

Your days must be tragic to spend your time like this.

[Anonymous]

This thread is getting boring. Going back to OP's initial post:

Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

Seems to be asking more about the origin of the theology? Like, do we:
a. think Jesus was a real guy who existed and was divine?
b. think Jesus was a real guy, but Paul and the other early Christians made up stories about his miracles and divinity?
c. think Jesus was entirely fictional?

[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/

Bumping this again because atheist pp’s seem desperate to get away from it, with endless gish-galloping into the meanings of words like “probability” and “scholar.”

I've responded to it twice. You seem desperate to get away from my responses.


Again...your quotes:
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"

"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"


Again...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.

And Ehrman is more definitive in other sources that were posted above. He started one blog saying “Jesus existed.”

He has called deniers “mythologists” and “

You keep coming back to this single, and apparently unrepresentative, Ehrman quote because everything else he says contradicts you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Bumping this again because atheist pp’s seem desperate to get away from it, with endless gish-galloping into the meanings of words like “probability” and “scholar.”

I've responded to it twice. You seem desperate to get away from my responses.


Again...your quotes:
"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"

"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"


Again...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.

And Ehrman is more definitive in other sources that were posted above. He started one blog saying “Jesus existed.”

He has called deniers “mythologists” and “

You keep coming back to this single, and apparently unrepresentative, Ehrman quote because everything else he says contradicts you.

Sorry, hit submit while I was going back to look for the quotes. But you get the gist and you can go back on this thread for the quotes. Ehrman has no doubt that Jesus existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is getting boring. Going back to OP's initial post:

Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

Seems to be asking more about the origin of the theology? Like, do we:
a. think Jesus was a real guy who existed and was divine?
b. think Jesus was a real guy, but Paul and the other early Christians made up stories about his miracles and divinity?
c. think Jesus was entirely fictional?

Derailment alert

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

And still none all these posts later! Which renders the existence question largely irrelevant!

Did an actual St. Nicholas exist?