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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

Here’s Bart:

Jesus existed. In yesterday’s post, I began to show how Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence.

But how can you make a convincing case [that someone made up Jesus] 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.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.

Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s [by itself] more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit.

(Still Bart talking) Short story: we are not talking about a Bart Ehrman Jesus figure invented in the year 60. There was widespread information about Jesus from the years after his death. Otherwise, you can’t explain all the literary evidence (dozens of independent sources), some of it based on Aramaic traditions of Jesus’ homeland.

People hearing about Jesus is not proof that he lived.

You don’t understand how historians do their jobs.

People have heard of Molly Pitcher, and yet... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Pitcher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's settled then:

- It is likely a man named Jesus existed
- There is zero evidence of his divinity

Now the thread is genuinely over, unless someone - explicitly and with evidence - disputes the above.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Not ”it is likely.” That goes against the vast consensus among scholars (historians and theologians) that Jesus existed. As the sainted Bart says, only 1-2 scholars out of 2,000-3,000 maintain that Jesus didn’t exist. How’s your tinfoil hat coming along?

It’s adorable you think that a handful of DCUM randos can settle the issue of Jesus’ historicity in a way that flies in the face of the work of thousands of actual scholars.

NP. What is the point of arguing "likely" vs. "certainty"?

We’re arguing certainty (the vast scholarly consensus) vs. likely (allowing room, even small, for denial, and the favorite position of 1-2 atheist trolls here).

I didn't ask what the argument was. I asked the point of the argument.

[Anonymous]

Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

Personally I enjoyed finding various unbiased, scholarly sources that agree Jesus DID exist. And using Bart Ehrman as exhibit A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

Personally I enjoyed finding various unbiased, scholarly sources that agree Jesus DID exist. And using Bart Ehrman as exhibit A.

No one linked to unbiased, independent sources. Link?

[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?

Don’t you all remember when we agreed on “most likely”. Those were the days.

So you’re nostalgic for a past when 2-3 atheists agreed on “most likely” in face of a vast scholarly consensus that says “definitely”?

You think DCUM decides this?

Hahahahahahaha

It wasn’t just atheists.

I can go bump the post. Should I?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

[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.

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.

Maybe not so easy after all.

From those Wikipedia links, at least these non-Christians, with no reason to say Jesus existed, so say Jesus existed. Can’t be bothered to go through them all and I’m sure you didn’t either.

But they’re all definitely independent and unbiased. If anything they’re all biased against:
- Bart Ehrman is an atheist and describes himself as a historian https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case
- Amy Jill Levine is Jewish
- Paula Fredickson is Jewish

We should believe you instead, why? What are your scholarly credentials?

I know how to read. Where did Ehrman go to college? What did he study?

[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: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?

Don’t you all remember when we agreed on “most likely”. Those were the days.

So you’re nostalgic for a past when 2-3 atheists agreed on “most likely” in face of a vast scholarly consensus that says “definitely”?

You think DCUM decides this?

Hahahahahahaha

It wasn’t just atheists.

I can go bump the post. Should I?

Nobody cares what a bunch of randos on DCUM think. We care about the vast consensus of several thousand scholars who say Jesus did exist.

[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.

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.

Maybe not so easy after all.

From those Wikipedia links, at least these non-Christians, with no reason to say Jesus existed, so say Jesus existed. Can’t be bothered to go through them all and I’m sure you didn’t either.

But they’re all definitely independent and unbiased. If anything they’re all biased against:
- Bart Ehrman is an atheist and describes himself as a historian https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case
- Amy Jill Levine is Jewish
- Paula Fredickson is Jewish

We should believe you instead, why? What are your scholarly credentials?

I know how to read. Where did Ehrman go to college? What did he study?

It’s amusing to watch you try to argue that Ehrman is
1. Not independent
2. not a scholar, and
3. Biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Pretzel much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

Personally I enjoyed finding various unbiased, scholarly sources that agree Jesus DID exist. And using Bart Ehrman as exhibit A.

No one linked to unbiased, independent sources. Link?

You must have missed the post on the previous page which gave these non-Christians, who have no reason to say Jesus existed, but who do say Jesus existed. If anything they’re all biased against:
- Bart Ehrman is an atheist and describes himself as a historian https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus...ist-a-historian-makes-his-case
- Amy Jill Levine is Jewish
- Paula Fredricksen is a Jewish historian

Multiple links to each of them on the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Your turn. Explain why all of these people are not scholars, not independent, and instead are biased in favor of Jesus’ existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

A pp absolutely said 51-99% chance Jesus existed. Stop lying.

Even a 1% chance he was made up means there’s room for denial. These basic English and logic concepts seem so hard for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

And here’s where you’re out of step with thousands of scholars, including the three above, who are convinced he definitely lived.