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:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.

Christian sources, such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed stories about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels, which tell about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, are historical documents. They were written around 60-90 A.D., so close to the time Jesus lived, and they give detailed information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

That evidence is unnecessary. There's no requirement for it.

There is for me to say 100%. There is very little from that era that we know 100%. Lots of very thoughtful interpretations and inferences though.

I’m sure that millions - billions - of people believe he exists without any “proof” at all. There is a wide spectrum of how people process information. That’s how we have “alternate facts”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.

“Every way” - even the supernatural elements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.

Christian sources, such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed stories about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels, which tell about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, are historical documents. They were written around 60-90 A.D., so close to the time Jesus lived, and they give detailed information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

Yes, that is the best “soft evidence” we currently have and why we can say he most likely lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.

This is so laughable. Just read it. There are disproved facts - and even contradictions within itself - in the book of Genesis, and it gets worse from there. It would hard to write a book with more wrong information in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

That evidence is unnecessary. There's no requirement for it.

There is for me to say 100%. There is very little from that era that we know 100%. Lots of very thoughtful interpretations and inferences though.

I’m sure that millions - billions - of people believe he exists without any “proof” at all. There is a wide spectrum of how people process information. That’s how we have “alternate facts”.

So you know better than thousands of scholars, including atheists and Jewish historians, who have spent their careers studying the field. Woohoo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.

“Every way” - even the supernatural elements?

It's authentic in that it isn't a hoax document created at some much later date in history. But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.

Christian sources, such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed stories about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels, which tell about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, are historical documents. They were written around 60-90 A.D., so close to the time Jesus lived, and they give detailed information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

Yes, that is the best “soft evidence” we currently have and why we can say he most likely lived.

The Society of Flat Earthers is sending you a membership card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.

Christian sources, such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed stories about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels, which tell about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, are historical documents. They were written around 60-90 A.D., so close to the time Jesus lived, and they give detailed information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

Yes, that is the best “soft evidence” we currently have and why we can say he most likely lived.

The Society of Flat Earthers is sending you a membership card.

DP here. So ironic that someone who believes in a magic sky faerie calls someone else a "flat earther".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.

Christian sources, such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed stories about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels, which tell about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, are historical documents. They were written around 60-90 A.D., so close to the time Jesus lived, and they give detailed information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus.

Yes, that is the best “soft evidence” we currently have and why we can say he most likely lived.

"We" is you. You're by yourself, and against the vast scholarly consensus, in saying "most likely."

[Anonymous]

Hmm, let’s move past the atheists’ kindergarten insults and get back to the actual arguments the vast scholarly consensus uses to argue that Jesus existed with certainty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
“The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. …. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did.”
━━ NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities, in the Guardian.

What evidence?

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.