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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread.

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission.

In the introduction of Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? he says, “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings.... But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist.”

He uses scripture as evidence so…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread.

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission.

In the introduction of Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? he says, “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings.... But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist.”

Thanks, pp, that’s a great quote

Just saw your other passages from various classical sources. Thanks again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread.

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission.

I never said he wasn’t a scholar. Seems like you have trouble reading.

He certainly has a bias given his background.

You mean his background for the past three decades attacking fundamental Christian principles? You’re hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure.

Most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth.

While historians and scholars abound who doubt Jesus performed miracles, literally over 99.9% of them (and 100% of relevantly credentialed professors) believe he existed. See examples of experts commenting on the status in their own field:

Paul Maier (Ancient history professor at Western Michigan): “Open nearly any text in ancient history of Western civilization used widely in colleges and universities today, and you will find a generally sympathetic, if compressed, version of Jesus' life, which ends with some variation of the statement that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and died as a result. No ranking historian anywhere in the world shares the ultimate criticism voiced by German philosopher Bruno Bauer in the last century, that Jesus was a myth, that he never lived in fact.” [“Christianity Today”, XIX (1975): 63.]

Michael Grant (Atheist professor at Edinburgh, Classicist): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” [Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Simon & Schuster, 1992.] (Approvingly citing Otto Betz)

Richard Burridge (Biblical exegesis professor at King's College, Classicist): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” [Jesus, Now and Then (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), 34.]

Robert Van Voorst (NT professor at Western Theological): “The nonhistoricity [of Jesus] thesis has always been controversial… Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.” [Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 16.]

Craig Evans (NT professor at Asbury; Founder of Dead Sea Scrolls Inst.): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this.” [Jesus, The Final Days eds. Evans & Wright (Westminster, 2009), 3.]

Mark Allen Powell (NT professor at Trinity Lutheran, a founding editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus): “A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.” [Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster, 1998), 168.]

Irrelevant. No one is denying or pushing mysticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very, very people doubt Jesus as a historical figure (which is entirely separate from Christianity).

Virtually all non-Christians recognize that such a person existed, much in the way that Cleopatra, Napoleon, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Gandhi, or any number of other historical figures existed. And then died as the 100% mortals they were.

This is me. I believe he was a historical figure, yes, perhaps even a high functioning person (for his times), but with highly exaggerated abilities and story. I believe it was done by those in power over the centuries to control the masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread.

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission.

I never said he wasn’t a scholar. Seems like you have trouble reading.

He certainly has a bias given his background.

You mean his background for the past three decades attacking fundamental Christian principles? You’re hilarious.

He only disputes the supernatural aspects. His work still assumes that the scriptures are legit sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread.

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission.

In the introduction of Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? he says, “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings.... But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist.”

He uses scripture as evidence so…

He also uses outside sources and linguistic evidence. All of which have been laid out on this thread over and over, but you choose to ignore it.

As pp showed, the vast consensus among classicists and historians is that Jesus existed.

It’s fascinating that you think you know better than all of these thousands of scholars. Tell us, what are your scholarly credentials?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Why are you speaking for thousands of scholars and academics?

Because there is only circumstantial evidence available. And many say “I accept” the historicity.

You have zero right to speak for any historian, scholar, or academic. What are your qualifications to speak for these people?

They say “I accept” the historicity because it is very likely he lived. Nobody can say definitively because we don’t have a direct evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread.

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission.

I never said he wasn’t a scholar. Seems like you have trouble reading.

He certainly has a bias given his background.

You mean his background for the past three decades attacking fundamental Christian principles? You’re hilarious.

He only disputes the supernatural aspects. His work still assumes that the scriptures are legit sources.

Nope. As has been repeated here multiple times, Ehrman uses many sources, including linguistic analysis of Aramaic and Greek texts, to make the argument for Jesus’ existence. Ehrman also doesn’t take the scriptures as entirely legit—he’s written books on why he thinks there are problems with the transmission of various supernatural elements.

Ehrman and thousands of other scholars have found no reason to doubt Paul, who wrote just a few years after Jesus that he, Paul, had met Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciple Peter.

If you have evidence that Paul was making it all up, you need to rush your evidence to Ehrman stat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Why are you speaking for thousands of scholars and academics?

Because there is only circumstantial evidence available. And many say “I accept” the historicity.

You have zero right to speak for any historian, scholar, or academic. What are your qualifications to speak for these people?

They say “I accept” the historicity because it is very likely he lived. Nobody can say definitively because we don’t have a direct evidence.

You and your word games. Now you’re arguing that “I accept” somehow implies a continued sliver of doubt. This is laughable.

Also, cites please. Who exactly is saying “I accept”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread.

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission.

I never said he wasn’t a scholar. Seems like you have trouble reading.

He certainly has a bias given his background.

You mean his background for the past three decades attacking fundamental Christian principles? You’re hilarious.

He only disputes the supernatural aspects. His work still assumes that the scriptures are legit sources.

Nope. As has been repeated here multiple times, Ehrman uses many sources, including linguistic analysis of Aramaic and Greek texts, to make the argument for Jesus’ existence. Ehrman also doesn’t take the scriptures as entirely legit—he’s written books on why he thinks there are problems with the transmission of various supernatural elements.

Ehrman and thousands of other scholars have found no reason to doubt Paul, who wrote just a few years after Jesus that he, Paul, had met Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciple Peter.

If you have evidence that Paul was making it all up, you need to rush your evidence to Ehrman stat.

Nobody has evidence either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^ I said that above. The evidence is circumstantial, but the weight of it is pretty persuasive.

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

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Why are you speaking for thousands of scholars and academics?

Because there is only circumstantial evidence available. And many say “I accept” the historicity.

You have zero right to speak for any historian, scholar, or academic. What are your qualifications to speak for these people?

They say “I accept” the historicity because it is very likely he lived. Nobody can say definitively because we don’t have a direct evidence.

You and your word games. Now you’re arguing that “I accept” somehow implies a continued sliver of doubt. This is laughable.

Also, cites please. Who exactly is saying “I accept”?

Probably someone from the Wikipedia link posted earlier. I can look later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very, very people doubt Jesus as a historical figure (which is entirely separate from Christianity).

Virtually all non-Christians recognize that such a person existed, much in the way that Cleopatra, Napoleon, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Gandhi, or any number of other historical figures existed. And then died as the 100% mortals they were.

This is me. I believe he was a historical figure, yes, perhaps even a high functioning person (for his times), but with highly exaggerated abilities and story. I believe it was done by those in power over the centuries to control the masses.

wtf (what the fudge) is a “high functioning person?”