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:

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....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

You have no idea, but the experts do.

They have interpreted secondary sources. So it seems like he most likely existed.

They don’t have primary evidence.

And what do you have?

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty.

so, not a shred of evidence. just a skeptical personality.

That’s your answer to the scholarly evidence?

[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:

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.

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.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

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

“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...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

“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.”

Yes, we know you can copy and paste. You are especially good at pasting irrelevant quotes.

Paul wasn’t an independent source. Why do you think he is?

Finally, we come to Paul’s letters. Since Paul was executed in AD 65 or before, all of his letters were written by that time. Paul may well have written before any of the Gospels. Moreover, not only does Paul claim to have been an eyewitness of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), he knew the leading apostles in Jerusalem – Peter, James, and John – and had run by them the Gospel message he had been preaching to ensure it was compatible with what they were preaching. And they certified that his message was in alignment with their own (Gal. 2:1-9). At least that is what Paul claimed. But should we believe him?

Historians look for sources that corroborate what is claimed in another. In this case, we have some interesting sources that strongly suggest Paul was telling the truth. Recall that Clement of Rome and Polycarp were probably acquainted with the apostles, Peter and John, respectively. It may, therefore, be fruitful to observe what Clement and Polycarp write about Paul. Clement refers to Peter and Paul as “the most righteous pillars” and “good apostles” (1 Clem. 5:2ff., Holmes numbering), while Polycarp calls him “the blessed and glorious Paul . . . [who] accurately and reliably taught the message of truth” (1 Clem . 3:2, Holmes numbering). These are not the sort of remarks we would expect from Clement and Polycarp if Paul had taught a message that was essentially different from what their mentors, Peter and John, had taught. But such remarks would not surprise us if Paul was being honest when saying he was preaching the same message as the Jerusalem apostles. So, Paul writes very early, claims to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, and proclaimed the same Gospel message being preached by the Jerusalem apostles who had known Jesus. Thus, when we read the Gospel message in Paul’s letters, we are likewise able to hear the voice of the Jerusalem apostles on the matter. Paul’s letters are, indeed, primary sources in terms of Jesus’ resurrection.

https://hbu.edu/news-and-events/2016/06/03/primary-sources-jesuss-resurrection/

[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.

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.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

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

“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...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

Once again, because you're having so much trouble with this.

Nobody is asking you to believe in Paul's message or Christianity.

We are asking you to provide your scholarly findings that prove James, Peter and now Paul made the whole thing up. Because that's the only other explanation, unless the atheist with third and fourth probabilities wants to chime in. Or you can sit down.

[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:

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....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

You have no idea, but the experts do.

They have interpreted secondary sources. So it seems like he most likely existed.

They don’t have primary evidence.

Nope. Paul is a primary source for his own meeting with Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter. You don't have to believe Paul's message, so enough of that foolishness. What you do have to do is produce your own scholarly evidence that James, Peter and Paul made it all 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:

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....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

Hahahahaha. You got nothing. All you can do is paraphrase "likely existed" into "no freaking idea."

Inescapable conclusion: you think there's some chance Jesus didn't exist and the mythicists are correct.

[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:

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....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

You have no idea, but the experts do.

They have interpreted secondary sources. So it seems like he most likely existed.

They don’t have primary evidence.

And what do you have?

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty.

Are you the lady Ehrman is laughing at in the video? It might explain your obsession with pretending he’s not a world class scholar and atheist. He publicly embarrassed you and now whenever you are reminded, you double down out of spite and embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

At about the 10 minute mark, Bart and Michael get into the evidence for Jesus. If you watch this video in it’s entirety, you will see with you own eyes and ears Bart is not a Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

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

“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...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

Once again, because you're having so much trouble with this.

Nobody is asking you to believe in Paul's message or Christianity.

We are asking you to provide your scholarly findings that prove James, Peter and now Paul made the whole thing up. Because that's the only other explanation, unless the atheist with third and fourth probabilities wants to chime in. Or you can sit down.

Paul isn’t an independent or eyewitness source.

No independent or eyewitness reports. No archeological artifacts. No primary sources.

[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:

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....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

You have no idea, but the experts do.

They have interpreted secondary sources. So it seems like he most likely existed.

They don’t have primary evidence.

And what do you have?

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty.

so, not a shred of evidence. just a skeptical personality.

That’s your answer to the scholarly evidence?

My point is that we only have interpretations of secondary sources.

[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:

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.

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.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

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

“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...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

Once again, because you're having so much trouble with this.

Nobody is asking you to believe in Paul's message or Christianity.

We are asking you to provide your scholarly findings that prove James, Peter and now Paul made the whole thing up. Because that's the only other explanation, unless the atheist with third and fourth probabilities wants to chime in. Or you can sit down.

Paul isn’t an independent or eyewitness source.

No independent or eyewitness reports. No archeological artifacts. No primary sources.

And your high tolerance for uncertainty is your “evidence.”

Hard pass on your “evidence.” It’s neither “hard” nor “soft,” it’s just your weird oppositional defiance disorder and disregard for actual scholarship.

[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:

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....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

Hahahahaha. You got nothing. All you can do is paraphrase "likely existed" into "no freaking idea."

Inescapable conclusion: you think there's some chance Jesus didn't exist and the mythicists are correct.

I think we will likely never absolutely know. All (limited) signs point to yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At about the 10 minute mark, Bart and Michael get into the evidence for Jesus. If you watch this video in it’s entirety, you will see with you own eyes and ears Bart is not a Christian.

No, we know Jesus existed, and scholars laugh at people who don’t believe Jesus existed.

[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:

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.

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.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

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

“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...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

Once again, because you're having so much trouble with this.

Nobody is asking you to believe in Paul's message or Christianity.

We are asking you to provide your scholarly findings that prove James, Peter and now Paul made the whole thing up. Because that's the only other explanation, unless the atheist with third and fourth probabilities wants to chime in. Or you can sit down.

Paul isn’t an independent or eyewitness source.

No independent or eyewitness reports. No archeological artifacts. No primary sources.

And your high tolerance for uncertainty is your “evidence.”

Hard pass on your “evidence.” It’s neither “hard” nor “soft,” it’s just your weird oppositional defiance disorder and disregard for actual scholarship.

No, I never said that was “evidence”.

The only things we have are interpretations of secondary sources. No primary sources. No independent eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. No scholar would say otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At about the 10 minute mark, Bart and Michael get into the evidence for Jesus. If you watch this video in it’s entirety, you will see with you own eyes and ears Bart is not a Christian.

No, we know Jesus existed, and scholars laugh at people who don’t believe Jesus existed.

We don’t absolutely know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At about the 10 minute mark, Bart and Michael get into the evidence for Jesus. If you watch this video in it’s entirety, you will see with you own eyes and ears Bart is not a Christian.

No, we know Jesus existed, and scholars laugh at people who don’t believe Jesus existed.

We don’t absolutely know.

You are absolutely wrong.

Bart (an atheist) gives 15 independent sources Jesus existed.