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:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

[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: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?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

+1. Atheist pp need to come up with scholarly arguments to oppose the scholarly arguments put forth by every single other classical and Biblical scholar.

Misunderstanding how courts and scholars use direct and indirect evidence isn't a reason (especially when atheist pp misdefines these words from the get-go). "I just don't wanna believe Jesus existed" isn't a reason.

No reputable scholar has claimed that we have primary sources.

No independent, eye witness accounts. (Paul isn't independent or an eye witness)

No archeological evidence.

You seriously don’t know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“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.”

The way you make Bart your enemy and discount his vast and impressive scholarship and amazing academic track record, along w/ his atheism, because he knows what he’s talking about, indicates you are a person who cannot be too much into “evidence” and “truth.” You make things personal and weird.

Bart's not my enemy. He's just a NT scholar who interpreted secondary sources. Nothing more, nothing less. Someone on this thread is really obsessed with him.

If you think he has "vast and impressive scholarship and amazing academic track record" then you also follow his position about Jesus' divinity?

DP. Stop trying to derail into divinity, it makes you look desperate.

Bart is so quotable because he's published a book on the subject and is such a great self-promoter.

Bart points out that not one single scholar argues Jesus didn't exist. You're not a scholar. You can sit down now.

I'm not arguing he didn't exist.

And I haven't been the PP posting about divinity. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in really being impressed with his scholarship and track record, but then cherry picking his positions.

[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: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?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

+1. Atheist pp need to come up with scholarly arguments to oppose the scholarly arguments put forth by every single other classical and Biblical scholar.

Misunderstanding how courts and scholars use direct and indirect evidence isn't a reason (especially when atheist pp misdefines these words from the get-go). "I just don't wanna believe Jesus existed" isn't a reason.

No reputable scholar has claimed that we have primary sources.

No independent, eye witness accounts. (Paul isn't independent or an eye witness)

No archeological evidence.

You seriously don’t know what you are talking about.

I do know we don't have primary sources.

No independent, eye witness accounts.

No archeological evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

[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: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?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

+1. Atheist pp need to come up with scholarly arguments to oppose the scholarly arguments put forth by every single other classical and Biblical scholar.

Misunderstanding how courts and scholars use direct and indirect evidence isn't a reason (especially when atheist pp misdefines these words from the get-go). "I just don't wanna believe Jesus existed" isn't a reason.

No reputable scholar has claimed that we have primary sources.

No independent, eye witness accounts. (Paul isn't independent or an eye witness)

No archeological evidence.

You seriously don’t know what you are talking about.

+1. Again, atheist pp has zero understanding about how courts and scholars use primary and secondary evidence. It's not a question of "believing" the gospels. It's a question of picking them apart and finding internal evidence.

From the longer post above:

1. 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?

Atheist pp's need to produce their own scholarly research to argue against these scholarly arguments, which are accepted by every.single classical and biblical scholar, including many atheists and Jews. Right after atheist pp's tell us their own scholarly credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

I think he most likely existed. There is a lot of supporting, indirect evidence.

Paul is neither independent or an eye witness to Jesus.

[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: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?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

+1. Atheist pp need to come up with scholarly arguments to oppose the scholarly arguments put forth by every single other classical and Biblical scholar.

Misunderstanding how courts and scholars use direct and indirect evidence isn't a reason (especially when atheist pp misdefines these words from the get-go). "I just don't wanna believe Jesus existed" isn't a reason.

No reputable scholar has claimed that we have primary sources.

No independent, eye witness accounts. (Paul isn't independent or an eye witness)

No archeological evidence.

You seriously don’t know what you are talking about.

+1. Again, atheist pp has zero understanding about how courts and scholars use primary and secondary evidence. It's not a question of "believing" the gospels. It's a question of picking them apart and finding internal evidence.

From the longer post above:

1. 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?

Atheist pp's need to produce their own scholarly research to argue against these scholarly arguments, which are accepted by every.single classical and biblical scholar, including many atheists and Jews. Right after atheist pp's tell us their own scholarly credentials.

These are all relevant interpretations of secondary sources that lead us to believe that he most likely did live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

I think he most likely existed. There is a lot of supporting, indirect evidence.

Paul is neither independent or an eye witness to Jesus.

So, you think there's some slim probability the mythicists are right and Jesus didn't exist. Got it.

(Sorry, your transparent word games can't substitute for basic logic.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, he most likely lived.

And if you think it’s hard to prove that some guy in ancient times did live, it’s even more difficult to “prove” that he didn’t.

[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: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?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history.

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking.

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate.

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in.

+1. Atheist pp need to come up with scholarly arguments to oppose the scholarly arguments put forth by every single other classical and Biblical scholar.

Misunderstanding how courts and scholars use direct and indirect evidence isn't a reason (especially when atheist pp misdefines these words from the get-go). "I just don't wanna believe Jesus existed" isn't a reason.

No reputable scholar has claimed that we have primary sources.

No independent, eye witness accounts. (Paul isn't independent or an eye witness)

No archeological evidence.

You seriously don’t know what you are talking about.

+1. Again, atheist pp has zero understanding about how courts and scholars use primary and secondary evidence. It's not a question of "believing" the gospels. It's a question of picking them apart and finding internal evidence.

From the longer post above:

1. 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?

Atheist pp's need to produce their own scholarly research to argue against these scholarly arguments, which are accepted by every.single classical and biblical scholar, including many atheists and Jews. Right after atheist pp's tell us their own scholarly credentials.

These are all relevant interpretations of secondary sources that lead us to believe that he most likely did live.

But why do you disagree with the certainty espoused by every real scholar?

Out with it. Produce your scholarly work on Aramaic appearances in the Greek gospels. Produce your theory (based on evidence you no doubt have in your possession) that James and Peter made Jesus up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, he most likely lived.

And if you think it’s hard to prove that some guy in ancient times did live, it’s even more difficult to “prove” that he didn’t.

More word games from a non-scholar.

You think Jesus "most likely" lived. Therefore you think there's some probability, even a slim one, that the mythicists are right and Jesus didn't live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

I think he most likely existed. There is a lot of supporting, indirect evidence.

Paul is neither independent or an eye witness to Jesus.

So, you think there's some slim probability the mythicists are right and Jesus didn't exist. Got it.

(Sorry, your transparent word games can't substitute for basic logic.)

Those are not the only two possibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, he most likely lived.

And if you think it’s hard to prove that some guy in ancient times did live, it’s even more difficult to “prove” that he didn’t.

Nope. That's now how it works. There's solid evidence, from multiple sources (not just Paul's letters) that James and Peter met Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

To disprove actual evidence, you need to come up with opposing facts. Show us your evidence that James and Paul made Jesus up.

Or you need to sit down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

I think he most likely existed. There is a lot of supporting, indirect evidence.

Paul is neither independent or an eye witness to Jesus.

So, you think there's some slim probability the mythicists are right and Jesus didn't exist. Got it.

(Sorry, your transparent word games can't substitute for basic logic.)

Those are not the only two possibilities.

What are the third or fourth possibilities?

This should be good....