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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

Scholarship and academia and professors and researchers have something called a “cold eye.” They don’t believe anything in their fields without lots of information, research, and evidence.

Every secular, atheist, or agnostic scholar in history, archaeology, the classics, etc, believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not their job to prove or disprove the resurrection. And because they are extremely intelligent and educated, they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me what I really mean or what I really want.

lots of indirect information, research, and evidence that drives their interpretation.

“Indirect evidence, also sometimes referred to as circumstantial evidence, is a fact or set of facts that, if true, allow a person can infer the fact at issue.“

Using the not used in scholarship term “circumstantial evidence” under a different name now, are we? Impressive. Not.

[Anonymous]

Cite
Indirect evidence, also sometimes referred to as circumstantial evidence, is a fact or set of facts that, if true, allow a person can infer the fact at issue.
...
This means a prosecutor can establish proof using:
only direct evidence,
only indirect evidence, or.
a combination of both direct and indirect evidence.

So a person can be sentenced to prison for a crime on just indirect evidence? Yes.

It’s not a terms used by scholars, professors, historians, etc.

[Anonymous]

Atheist pp's lack of scholarly creds is on display in her use of "direct" and "indirect" instead of what historians and scholars actually say, which is "primary" and "secondary" evidence.

Here you go, the secondary evidence that was convincing enough to convince all but 1-2 scholars in this field, including Bart Ehrman and many other atheist and Jewish scholars.

***

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]

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cite
Indirect evidence, also sometimes referred to as circumstantial evidence, is a fact or set of facts that, if true, allow a person can infer the fact at issue.
...
This means a prosecutor can establish proof using:
only direct evidence,
only indirect evidence, or.
a combination of both direct and indirect evidence.

So a person can be sentenced to prison for a crime on just indirect evidence? Yes.

It’s not a terms used by scholars, professors, historians, etc.

Deflection.

Where are the independent, eye witness reports or archeological artifacts?

No scholars/professors/historians claim that we have direct evidence/primary sources.

[Anonymous]

Here you go, the secondary evidence

Great. Now we can all agree that what you obsessively copy and paste is just "secondary evidence".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

Just watch this every time you need answers.

[Anonymous]

believes <> absolutely certain

They make that assumption and move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here you go, the secondary evidence

Great. Now we can all agree that what you obsessively copy and paste is just "secondary evidence".

So what? You're an idiot, sorry. Watch the Bart Ehrman video somebody else posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

Just watch this every time you need answers.

DP. Pulling this out from somebody's Bart Ehrman post for the atheist who keeps yammering about direct evidence. Atheist pp is like an ostrich with her head in the sand, a foolish ostrich. The author Bart is referring to who knew Jesus' brother and closest disciple is Paul. Bolding is mine.

"The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:believes <> absolutely certain

They make that assumption and move forward.

So now you are disparaging and attacking the scholarship and education and professionalism of every scholar and academic? They are all wrong and don’t do their jobs? But you, the dcum poster who garbles up legal terms to use in debate incorrectly and won’t even answer if you have any college degree (which means you do not) has the truth? You are the guy or gal that knows the truth, our if every professor and scholar and academic in the world?

You are delusional. Take a step back and read how crazy that sounds.

[Anonymous]

*out *of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:believes <> absolutely certain

They make that assumption and move forward.

So now you are disparaging and attacking the scholarship and education and professionalism of every scholar and academic? They are all wrong and don’t do their jobs? But you, the dcum poster who garbles up legal terms to use in debate incorrectly and won’t even answer if you have any college degree (which means you do not) has the truth? You are the guy or gal that knows the truth, out if every professor and scholar and academic in the world?

You are delusional. Take a step back and read how crazy that sounds.

DP. Bart Ehrman says atheist pp sounds "foolish," those are Bart's words not mine. Agree atheist pp doesn't even understand the terms she's using and with "certainty" knows nothing about the scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here you go, the secondary evidence

Great. Now we can all agree that what you obsessively copy and paste is just "secondary evidence".

So what? You're an idiot, sorry. Watch the Bart Ehrman video somebody else posted.

My entire point is that we only have secondary evidence. Your buddy, Bart, doesn't claim otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

If you are reading this thread, make your choice between the atheist scholar in the youtube video, vs a few atheists here w/o any formal education beyond high school, one of which uses the legal term “circumstantial” evidence or “indirect” evidence in an inappropriate and repeated manner. It should not be hard. Bart is an atheist, too, but is a very educated man who goes where the evidence goes, and states plainly we have eyewitness evidence and independent evidence, abundant evidence, to the historical Jesus.