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

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Weird, all the reviews seem to have read a completely different book. For example, here's one atheist reviewer complaining: "Unfortunately, A.N. Wilson goes to great lengths to convince the readers that Paul was a wonderful man and a religious genius, and that everyone who believes that Paul was a self-serving trouble maker must have misunderstood the Bible."

Also, Wilson wrote his book in 1997 but then in April 2009, he published an article in the Daily Mail affirming his rediscovery of faith, and conversion to Christianity, attacking at the same time both academic and media atheists.

PS, that was from Amazon and that review is the third or fourth down. The others aren't much different.

Amazon reviews are hard evidence? Who knew.

Sorry your feefees are hurt that somebody completely contradicted whatever it was you made up about A N Wilson....

[Anonymous]

Time to get back to the thread subject....

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you're in the camp of, I dunno, 1-10% possibility of denial. Shake hands with the skinhead Holocaust deniers.

1) not denying - just saying we don’t have evidence

2) we have hard evidence and eyewitnesses to the Holocaust so your comparison doesn’t even make sense if there was a denier

Parse this for us, please. Saying "we don't have evidence"
1. Flies in the face of the evidence above, which you cavalierly dismiss as biased or irrelevant.
2. Opens the door wide to denial.

Denying means that you think someone made it up. Realistically, I don’t think someone made it up.

We just don’t have hard evidence.

The "vast historical consensus" thinks the evidence is solid, that Jesus existed with certainty.

Without using cheap words like "biased" and "irrelevant," can you explain why you disagree? (Honestly, calling Bart Ehrman biased in favor of finding Jesus existed is the funniest thing I've read today.)

Feel free to lean on your credentials and scholarly work on the field to back up your, ahem, opinions.

What is Bart’s background? What did he do up until he became an atheist? What did he do after he became an atheist.

Do you know what bias means?

Bart hasn't been religious for 20-30 years. If anything, if he could disprove Jesus' existence he would, because he could make even more money and go down in history.

Do you know what bias means?

What has he been doing over those years? He’s still deep into NT analysis. His bias isn’t explicit.

I know someone on here is his #1 fan but he isn’t independent or unbiased.

He's deep into NT analysis in order to DISPROVE it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You need to explain how, in Bart's case, doing NT analysis to disprove Christian theology counter-intuitively makes Bart a champion for Jesus existing. Because in Bart's case it makes no sense.

Also in Bart's case there would be plenty more money made if he could prove Jesus never existed. That's what bias is about.

You're the one focussing on Bart. You keep avoiding explaining why Jewish scholars Levine and Fredericton are "biased" in favor of Jesus' existence. \

Some poster is crazy obsessed with him and posts about him incessantly.

Because atheist pp's are unable to find bias with the other two of the original trio, Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen, who also argue it's certain Jesus existed.

Bart has written a book on the certain existence of Jesus. Bart also promotes himself constantly, to NPR and everywhere else. So it's easier to find quotes from Bart than from the thousands of ivory tower academics.

All three are NT scholars, not independent historians.

And neither Jewish woman is a traditionally Jewish. One was formerly Catholic. Was one even a Jew for Jesus? I don’t have their bios open right now.

Which one was formerly Catholic?

I just went back 10 pages and still couldn't find my links. Maybe if some nut wasn't obsessively posting irrelevant quotes and images it'd be easier to find. Anyway. Google them. It's not hard to find.

No matter, finding these people were ex-Catholics would actually work against you, just like Bart Ehrman being an atheist already works against you.

You're completely unable to produce the missing leap in logic. Namely, why you think somebody with a vested interest in proving Jesus did not exist (fame, fortune, scholarly acclaim) would instead want to prove he does exist. Your argument "because they've studied the New Testament" makes no sense.

-- Not the person posting quotes

Why would he have a “vested interest” in proving a negative? As hard as it is to prove he did exist, it’d be even harder to prove he didn’t.

NT academics aren’t independent, they are naturally biased. They have dedicated their careers towards something they believe to be “true” (supernatural & inconsistent bits aside).

I'm sorry, but this is just silly.

If Bart has any bias, it's toward finding Jesus DIDN'T exist. Bart has based his career on challenging various aspects of the Christian scriptures, writing books like "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted." He's made a lot of money doing so. He could make a lot more money and achieve internal fame if he could produce proof Jesus DIDN'T exist.

You don't even try to explain why Bart would want to find Jesus existed. Because you can't. There's not one good reason.

You think he had a motive going into his analysis?

Absolutely. Bart Ehrman is biased. He wants to discredit Christianity, and make a lot of money by doing it.

If even Bart thinks Jesus "certainly" existed and says you wafflers look "foolish," then Jesus existed.

He wants to discredit the supernatural aspects. He is deep into the NT.

Why would he want to discredit the supernatural but not the whole thing including Jesus' existence?

He's an atheist.

Your position makes zero sense.

Atheist doesn’t mean anti-Jesus.

Atheist just means you don’t believe in supernatural stuff. Nothing about historical figures.

It's unbelievable you're still trying to push this. You make zero sense.

As already noted, you're missing a big piece of logic. Namely, it's clear what Bart would gain proving Jesus DIDN'T exist: fame and fortune.

You're completely unable to explain what's in it for Bart by proving Jesus DID exist. No, "he studied the New Testament" isn't any kind of explanation. Nor is "there's a distinction between supernatural stuff and historical stuff." You fail massively in explaining motivation. If Bart could take it all, you know he would.

There is no evidence that he didn’t exist (that would be even more difficult than proving he did), so he wouldn’t be taken seriously if he did that. No fame. No money.

There’s nothing “in it” for him. Most academics are seeking “the truth”. Sometimes that truth is influenced by their background and deep-seated beliefs.

Puhleeze. With book titles like "Jesus, Interrupted" and 4-5 course offerings on The Great Courses, Bart is definitely in it at least partly for the money.

You keep mentioning "their background" in NT studies. But you still have zero explanation why that, alone, would cause Bart to believe Jesus existed. If anything, long familiarity often causes people to doubt.

I work in a research field. You don't understand what motivates researchers.

So they all have ulterior motives to get rich and famous?

I never said that. If I were the shrill atheist here (you?) I'd accuse you of lying.

Atheists are motivated by a lot of things, and different atheists are motivated by different things.

But yes, achieving academic acclaim from your peers is definitely motivational for most academics. Money may or may not be. In Bart's case, with all his books with snarky titles, I suspect money is motivating but I don't know.

Clearly he wants the scholarly acclaim piece. And debunking all the evidence you aren't convinced by would be a good way to do it.

Do you think he’d achieve academic acclaim by pushing the denier argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Weird, all the reviews seem to have read a completely different book. For example, here's one atheist reviewer complaining: "Unfortunately, A.N. Wilson goes to great lengths to convince the readers that Paul was a wonderful man and a religious genius, and that everyone who believes that Paul was a self-serving trouble maker must have misunderstood the Bible."

Also, Wilson wrote his book in 1997 but then in April 2009, he published an article in the Daily Mail affirming his rediscovery of faith, and conversion to Christianity, attacking at the same time both academic and media atheists.

PS, that was from Amazon and that review is the third or fourth down. The others aren't much different.

Amazon reviews are hard evidence? Who knew.

Sorry your feefees are hurt that somebody completely contradicted whatever it was you made up about A N Wilson....

You aren't hurting my feelings. I just feel depressed about your critical thinking skills. The short essentially anonymous opinion counts for very little. There's nothing else to gauge it against. It exists in a vacuum. If you want to challenge Wilson's work, you need to find a more reputable source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

Sources of information or evidence are often categorized as primary, secondary, or tertiary material.

If you don’t understand these basic ways of classifying evidence…why should anyone believe you know what you are talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

I guess you are really fixated on language because there is no “hard evidence” to discuss.
https://www.reference.com/world-view/difference-between-hard-evidence-soft-evidence-e56c8e2e5f14efdf
“Overall, the main difference between hard and soft evidence is that hard evidence is always preferable to softer alternatives, for the simple fact that even the best soft evidence cannot outweigh hard evidence in any form. That said, there is still value to soft evidence, especially in the absence of hard evidence.

Soft evidence can refer to anything from simple word of mouth or argumentation, to authoritative opinion on a given subject. The highest form of soft evidence tends to be supporting opinions from an authority with certifiable credentials. While random guessing also qualifies as soft evidence, it is generally not worth pursuing given that even the highest form of soft evidence are still just that: soft.

Soft evidence does still have value, but only in the absence of hard evidence. If there is no supporting hard evidence, then the best available forms of soft evidence should be used in the meantime.

A further problem with soft evidence is the appeal to authority. While most of the time an authoritative opinion will be valid, it is not always the case. There is a danger of placing too much faith in an authoritative source, as it is important to remember that even though it is the highest form of soft evidence, it still does not outweigh hard evidence.


I used the general definition.
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


Were you the PP unfamiliar with elementary-school level probability terms? Hope that video was helpful for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

Sources of information or evidence are often categorized as primary, secondary, or tertiary material.

If you don’t understand these basic ways of classifying evidence…why should anyone believe you know what you are talking about?

We have no primary sources.

[Anonymous]

Why rehash an old post?
Obvious answer is that Christian theology has its roots from the Jews.
Call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Weird, all the reviews seem to have read a completely different book. For example, here's one atheist reviewer complaining: "Unfortunately, A.N. Wilson goes to great lengths to convince the readers that Paul was a wonderful man and a religious genius, and that everyone who believes that Paul was a self-serving trouble maker must have misunderstood the Bible."

Also, Wilson wrote his book in 1997 but then in April 2009, he published an article in the Daily Mail affirming his rediscovery of faith, and conversion to Christianity, attacking at the same time both academic and media atheists.

PS, that was from Amazon and that review is the third or fourth down. The others aren't much different.

Amazon reviews are hard evidence? Who knew.

Sorry your feefees are hurt that somebody completely contradicted whatever it was you made up about A N Wilson....

You aren't hurting my feelings. I just feel depressed about your critical thinking skills. The short essentially anonymous opinion counts for very little. There's nothing else to gauge it against. It exists in a vacuum. If you want to challenge Wilson's work, you need to find a more reputable source.

You completely mischaracterized Wilson and now you're accusing others of doing so. You don't understand probability and now you're accusing others of not understanding it. This is so typical for DCUM's atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

Sources of information or evidence are often categorized as primary, secondary, or tertiary material.

If you don’t understand these basic ways of classifying evidence…why should anyone believe you know what you are talking about?

DP. The vast majority of scholars (all but 1-2 or several thousand according to Ehrman) believe the evidence above at 22:07 is enough to know with certainty that Jesus existed.

You're in a tiny, tiny minority. You're not a scholar and you haven't even said you went to college. You're unable to challenge the evidence above except for nonsensical arguments that Ehrman is biased in favor of Christ's existence, insults about probability (when you're the one who didn't understand that "not certain" means you think there's some probability Jesus did not exist), and wrong-headed assertions that scholars take the gospels on faith.

Enjoy the company of Holocaust deniers and flat earthers.

[Anonymous]

And where is the evidence he was a god again?

What? You mean there isn’t any?

Then what is the need for all this other noise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

I guess you are really fixated on language because there is no “hard evidence” to discuss.
https://www.reference.com/world-view/difference-between-hard-evidence-soft-evidence-e56c8e2e5f14efdf
“Overall, the main difference between hard and soft evidence is that hard evidence is always preferable to softer alternatives, for the simple fact that even the best soft evidence cannot outweigh hard evidence in any form. That said, there is still value to soft evidence, especially in the absence of hard evidence.

Soft evidence can refer to anything from simple word of mouth or argumentation, to authoritative opinion on a given subject. The highest form of soft evidence tends to be supporting opinions from an authority with certifiable credentials. While random guessing also qualifies as soft evidence, it is generally not worth pursuing given that even the highest form of soft evidence are still just that: soft.

Soft evidence does still have value, but only in the absence of hard evidence. If there is no supporting hard evidence, then the best available forms of soft evidence should be used in the meantime.

A further problem with soft evidence is the appeal to authority. While most of the time an authoritative opinion will be valid, it is not always the case. There is a danger of placing too much faith in an authoritative source, as it is important to remember that even though it is the highest form of soft evidence, it still does not outweigh hard evidence.


I used the general definition.
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


Were you the PP unfamiliar with elementary-school level probability terms? Hope that video was helpful for you.

<a href="https://ibb.co/ckT1GyT"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/2WKyDFK/7526-A80-A-D147-41-F8-9-AB9-8-D6-CA8493323.jpg" alt="7526-A80-A-D147-41-F8-9-AB9-8-D6-CA8493323" border="0"></a>

You linked to the most generic website possible, and threw down some knowledge written by “Staff Writer.”

lol

[Anonymous]