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: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.

If we're taking scripture at its word, then are we drawing a line somewhere when historical evidence refutes it? Or are we just taking scripture as fact because enough people in scripture said it?

Bumping because, yeah... Are we just saying that if enough people said something, it's true? Even the antisemitic lie that the Jews killed Jesus? Because that's where this leads.

Who is “we”? Are you a scholar, even a classicist or historian? Let us know your credentials.

Again, find one scholar who agrees with you and link to them. Otherwise you’re keeping company with skinhead holocaust deniers, flat-earthers and climate-change deniers.

...What? "We" are the people arguing about this on DCUM. And yes, I was a history major, though I didn't go into academia as a field. I'm just pointing out the flawed logic of using "lots of people mentioned Jesus" as proof of a truth.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Refusing to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historial figure is an entirely stupid argument for atheists to make. Nothing about Jesus being an actual person undermines the idea that Jesus was not the son of God. There are lots of people who are currently alive and clam a special relationship with God. People outside of their congregations and faith traditions are rightly skeptical of those claims. It's logical to accept that Jesus was a historical figure (rabbi, teacher, victim of political persecution by the Romans), but NOT the son of God. Christian theology emerges from the teachings of Jesus, Judaism, Hellenism, and Roman culture.

Jesus existed and was a real man. The trolls on this thread are absolutely seething they have to admit that.

Nobody *has* to admit that. Especially given that we do t have definitive proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This fight is really silly.

I would argue that the person Jesus Christ, who almost certainly was a real mortal person, didn't have much to do with what we call Christian theology 2,000 years later. That's a much more interesting thing to ponder than pretending we could prove absolutely that he existed.

Some people are distraught by your “certainly”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased against finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did:
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "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."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty.
- ???

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.]

Jesus existed and if you deny his existence you are a fringe lunatic, like holocaust deniers and flat earthers.

Nobody here has denied.

[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.

^ 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.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from.

Why are you using a specific legal term inappropriately?

Atheist pp's have spent the day abusing the English language. Just a few examples.
probability
if only
scholar
likely
accept

No, we were defining those words for people who clearly don’t understand them. Need a refresher? I can post the video that explains probability at an elementary-school level again.

[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.

^ 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.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from.

Why are you using a specific legal term inappropriately?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from. For example, if an assault happened on O'Connell Street at 6.15pm, you can give evidence that you saw the accused walking down O'Connell Street at 6pm. In that situation, you are giving the court circumstantial evidence. The court can draw conclusions from the fact that the accused was on O'Connell Street at 6pm, but you have not given evidence about whether the accused attacked a person.

Examples of circumstantial evidence
Common examples of circumstantial evidence include:

Evidence that establishes a motive
Evidence of an opportunity to commit the offence
Evidence of the accused’s state of mind when the offence was committed
Evidence of the accused preparing for the crime
Evidence of the accused having items that could be used to commit the offence
Evidence of identification, for example, the accused’s DNA, fingerprints or mobile phone records
Evidence that the accused committed similar crimes around the same time the alleged offence was committed
Evidence of the accused giving different versions of events

The historicity of Jesus Christ is not a legal issue being considered by a judge or jury in a court trial.

Not PP but I’ve also used the term on this thread. Here was the non-legal definition I was using:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/circumstantial
containing information, especially about a crime, that makes you think something is true but does not completely prove it:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Refusing to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historial figure is an entirely stupid argument for atheists to make. Nothing about Jesus being an actual person undermines the idea that Jesus was not the son of God. There are lots of people who are currently alive and clam a special relationship with God. People outside of their congregations and faith traditions are rightly skeptical of those claims. It's logical to accept that Jesus was a historical figure (rabbi, teacher, victim of political persecution by the Romans), but NOT the son of God. Christian theology emerges from the teachings of Jesus, Judaism, Hellenism, and Roman culture.

Jesus existed and was a real man. The trolls on this thread are absolutely seething they have to admit that.

Nobody *has* to admit that. Especially given that we do t have definitive proof.

People who fail to admit that are in a fringe group that also probably believes that the earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Refusing to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historial figure is an entirely stupid argument for atheists to make. Nothing about Jesus being an actual person undermines the idea that Jesus was not the son of God. There are lots of people who are currently alive and clam a special relationship with God. People outside of their congregations and faith traditions are rightly skeptical of those claims. It's logical to accept that Jesus was a historical figure (rabbi, teacher, victim of political persecution by the Romans), but NOT the son of God. Christian theology emerges from the teachings of Jesus, Judaism, Hellenism, and Roman culture.

Jesus existed and was a real man. The trolls on this thread are absolutely seething they have to admit that.

Nobody *has* to admit that. Especially given that we do t have definitive proof.

People who fail to admit that are in a fringe group that also probably believes that the earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.

We have definitive evidence that the earth is round and that the moon landings happened.

He most likely existed. He most likely was a real man. If we don’t have definitive evidence no one *has* to say he existed with 100% certainty.

[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: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.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from.

Why are you using a specific legal term inappropriately?

Atheist pp's have spent the day abusing the English language. Just a few examples.
probability
if only
scholar
likely
accept

No, we were defining those words for people who clearly don’t understand them. Need a refresher? I can post the video that explains probability at an elementary-school level again.

No need. We all understand these words. The problem is that you abused them.

[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: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.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from.

Why are you using a specific legal term inappropriately?

Atheist pp's have spent the day abusing the English language. Just a few examples.
probability
if only
scholar
likely
accept

No, we were defining those words for people who clearly don’t understand them. Need a refresher? I can post the video that explains probability at an elementary-school level again.

No need. We all understand these words. The problem is that you abused them.

Nope. I used them all correctly. You misread.

And I clearly had to define basic probability terms for some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased against finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did:
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "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."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty.
- ???

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof.

This is a dumb argument. Ehrman, Levine and the others have spent their careers studying religion, but they disagree strongly with various aspects of theology. Yet they all agree with certainty that Jesus existed.

Also a dumb argument: that nobody here cited any classicists or historians. Refer to the post at 17:44 about Paul Meier and Michael Grant (who used more than the gospels to examine the gospels, don't just go by his book's title, jeez).

Also a dumb argument: that the gospels somehow don't count.

Also a dumb argument: that the gospels were the only source. As has been repeated here again and again, these scholars used external sources and linguistic evidence as well.

Let's quote Bart again: “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...ight-that-jesus-never-existed/ . Y

1-2 trolls on DCUM, with no scholarly credentials or evidence, disagree. Hmmm, who should we believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased against finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did:
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "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."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty.
- ???

Bumping this because some of you still think you know better than thousands of scholars (historians, classicists and theologians) who agree Jesus definitely existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased against finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did:
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "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."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty.
- ???

Bumping this because some of you still think you know better than thousands of scholars (historians, classicists and theologians) who agree Jesus definitely existed.

Again…

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased against finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did:
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "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."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty.
- ???

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof.

This is a dumb argument. Ehrman, Levine and the others have spent their careers studying religion, but they disagree strongly with various aspects of theology. Yet they all agree with certainty that Jesus existed.

Also a dumb argument: that nobody here cited any classicists or historians. Refer to the post at 17:44 about Paul Meier and Michael Grant (who used more than the gospels to examine the gospels, don't just go by his book's title, jeez).

Also a dumb argument: that the gospels somehow don't count.

Also a dumb argument: that the gospels were the only source. As has been repeated here again and again, these scholars used external sources and linguistic evidence as well.

Let's quote Bart again: “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...ight-that-jesus-never-existed/ . Y

1-2 trolls on DCUM, with no scholarly credentials or evidence, disagree. Hmmm, who should we believe?

Of course, the gospels don’t count. You can’t independently prove something by using it as evidence. And if your “source” includes supernatural events then that eliminates any credibility.

If you ask thousands of people who study the NT if Jesus existed, of course they will all say yes.