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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back and recap again, shall we? Fun!

The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "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. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and not part of the gospels, despite what some of you apparently think). Short version: Paul, who wrote starting in 33AD, knew Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples John and Peter. You'd think that if Jesus never existed, James would have said something. Ehrman writes that this is "the death knell" for mythicism.

4. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers and win international renown by finding Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- 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.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because DCUM gets to decide.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen take the gospels as, well, gospel. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus") and win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Bumping. Already....

Spoiler: You repeating the same (incorrect/irrelevant) things over and over again doesn’t make it any more convincing. If you had direct evidence no one would need to be “convinced”.

No one said that “likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly”.

Well gee.

You're calling evidence provided by eminent scholars "incorrect" and "irrelevant." What are your own scholarly credentials again?

Help us out with your own scholarly proof it was all made up. Find that evil mastermind in the 1-3rd century CE who invented Jesus. Because that's the only possible "inference" from your posts.

No, I’m calling your comments irrelevant and/or incorrect.

I don’t think it was made up. There just isn’t direct evidence of his existence. If there was direct evidence then we wouldn’t have this thread and it wouldn’t even be debated by academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Deniers' positions going forward:

(1) Bart Ehrman and Jewish historians all have a vested interest in finding Jesus existed.
(2) Ignoring all the other evidence

Having biases doesn’t mean “invested interest”.

Do we need to define bias now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased.

Nobody's inferring from the Aramaic residuals in the gospels, Bart actually points them out in the link you didn't read. Nobody's inferring Paul's friendship with Peter, James and John. Nobody's inferring the lack of Jewish denials that Jesus existed--but if you have it, you should definitely show it to academia! It's simple logic to say there must have been hundreds of people talking about Jesus across the Mediterranean within a decade of his death. And so on.

What are your scholarly credentials again?

“No one denied his existence” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

“People heard stories about him” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

It’s inferred, but it’s not direct.

So, revered scholar, your inference is that some mastermind centuries later made up the Aramaic parts of the gospels and inserted them for versimilitude? Who was that, and what strong evidence do you have?

No, I’m not saying they were made up. Just that it’s not direct evidence of his existence. That does prove that someone who authored portions of the gospel spoke Aramaic.

He most likely existed, we just don’t have direct evidence. Not surprising given the time & location.

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).35

Who is the “we” in your post? Who are you speaking for, besides yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased.

Nobody's inferring from the Aramaic residuals in the gospels, Bart actually points them out in the link you didn't read. Nobody's inferring Paul's friendship with Peter, James and John. Nobody's inferring the lack of Jewish denials that Jesus existed--but if you have it, you should definitely show it to academia! It's simple logic to say there must have been hundreds of people talking about Jesus across the Mediterranean within a decade of his death. And so on.

What are your scholarly credentials again?

“No one denied his existence” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

“People heard stories about him” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

It’s inferred, but it’s not direct.

So, revered scholar, your inference is that some mastermind centuries later made up the Aramaic parts of the gospels and inserted them for versimilitude? Who was that, and what strong evidence do you have?

No, I’m not saying they were made up. Just that it’s not direct evidence of his existence. That does prove that someone who authored portions of the gospel spoke Aramaic.

He most likely existed, we just don’t have direct evidence. Not surprising given the time & location.

Which means it was probably authored in the first decade after his life. Jesus' teaching career was actually really short. Not sure what else you want or think is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).35

Who is the “we” in your post? Who are you speaking for, besides yourself?

This is a quote from Bart Ehrman and he's referring to scholars.

What are your scholarly credentials again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back and recap again, shall we? Fun!

The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "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. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and not part of the gospels, despite what some of you apparently think). Short version: Paul, who wrote starting in 33AD, knew Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples John and Peter. You'd think that if Jesus never existed, James would have said something. Ehrman writes that this is "the death knell" for mythicism.

4. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers and win international renown by finding Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- 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.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because DCUM gets to decide.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen take the gospels as, well, gospel. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus") and win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Bumping. Already....

Spoiler: You repeating the same (incorrect/irrelevant) things over and over again doesn’t make it any more convincing. If you had direct evidence no one would need to be “convinced”.

No one said that “likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly”.

Well gee.

You're calling evidence provided by eminent scholars "incorrect" and "irrelevant." What are your own scholarly credentials again?

Help us out with your own scholarly proof it was all made up. Find that evil mastermind in the 1-3rd century CE who invented Jesus. Because that's the only possible "inference" from your posts.

No, I’m calling your comments irrelevant and/or incorrect.

I don’t think it was made up. There just isn’t direct evidence of his existence. If there was direct evidence then we wouldn’t have this thread and it wouldn’t even be debated by academics.

However, for Byron McCane, archaeologist and historian of religions and Judaism at the Atlantic University of Florida (USA), both the baptism and the crucifixion are stories that the first Christians are unlikely to have invented, since neither of them “supports their interests in any way,” he asserts to OpenMind. “The baptism shows Jesus to be a disciple of (and therefore inferior to) John the Baptist, and the crucifixion was a humiliating punishment reserved for criminals.”

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

It’s not debated by trained historians, scholars, academics, or archaeologists. They compare the denial of the historical existence of Jesus Christ to climate change denial, holocaust denial, moon landing denial, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased.

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying.

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased.

Nobody's inferring from the Aramaic residuals in the gospels, Bart actually points them out in the link you didn't read. Nobody's inferring Paul's friendship with Peter, James and John. Nobody's inferring the lack of Jewish denials that Jesus existed--but if you have it, you should definitely show it to academia! It's simple logic to say there must have been hundreds of people talking about Jesus across the Mediterranean within a decade of his death. And so on.

What are your scholarly credentials again?

“No one denied his existence” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

“People heard stories about him” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

It’s inferred, but it’s not direct.

So, revered scholar, your inference is that some mastermind centuries later made up the Aramaic parts of the gospels and inserted them for versimilitude? Who was that, and what strong evidence do you have?

No, I’m not saying they were made up. Just that it’s not direct evidence of his existence. That does prove that someone who authored portions of the gospel spoke Aramaic.

He most likely existed, we just don’t have direct evidence. Not surprising given the time & location.

Which means it was probably authored in the first decade after his life. Jesus' teaching career was actually really short. Not sure what else you want or think is reasonable.

Ok. So it approximates the time period.

Still not direct evidence of his existence.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Again, no evidence he was a god, so why do we care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deniers' positions going forward:

(1) Bart Ehrman and Jewish historians all have a vested interest in finding Jesus existed.
(2) Ignoring all the other evidence

Having biases doesn’t mean “invested interest”.

Do we need to define bias now?

Maybe, since you’re confusing “vested” and “invested.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nice, pp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased.

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying.

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying.

So why don't you back up and tell us your larger point. Make your point explicit. Spending days on DCUM trying (despite your own lack of credentials) to discredit thousands of scholars by calling their work irrelevant, biased, or not direct seems evidence that you're desperately trying to open up space for denying and denials.

Choose one.
1. Jesus "likely" or "probably" existed--but there's room for doubt and the deniers, even if it's small.
2. Jesus definitely existed (the "vast scholarly consensus" per Ehrman).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deniers' positions going forward:

(1) Bart Ehrman and Jewish historians all have a vested interest in finding Jesus existed.
(2) Ignoring all the other evidence

Having biases doesn’t mean “invested interest”.

Do we need to define bias now?

Maybe, since you’re confusing “vested” and “invested.”

Yes. Typing quickly on my phone.

Having biases doesn’t mean “vested interest”.

Do we need to define bias now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased.

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying.

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying.

So why don't you back up and tell us your larger point. Make your point explicit. Spending days on DCUM trying (despite your own lack of credentials) to discredit thousands of scholars by calling their work irrelevant, biased, or not direct seems evidence that you're desperately trying to open up space for denying and denials.

Choose one.
1. Jesus "likely" or "probably" existed--but there's room for doubt and the deniers, even if it's small.
2. Jesus definitely existed (the "vast scholarly consensus" per Ehrman).

A guy named Jesus most likely lived. We don’t have any direct evidence of it though.