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:

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.

Paul knowing Peter and James IS a primary source. Multiple sources besides Paul attest to this.

The onus is on you to prove it DIDN'T happen. And then to explain why James and Peter MADE UP Jesus.

We'll wait....

That’s not how it works. The level of certainty goes up with more (any) primary sources.

Nope. We have a great primary source in the fact of Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter. Other sources also attest to this meeting. You're unable to disprove the sources or to explain why Paul, Jesus and James made Jesus up.

Case closed. As Bart says, Paul's meeting with Peter and James is "pretty much the death knell for mythicism, as some of them will agree."

Paul isn't an independent source no matter how you slice it. Plus, he's not an eyewitness.

At best, he knew people who told him about Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TITUS KENNEDY

Degrees
BA Biola University

So he's an evangelical christian? And he believes that Jesus was real? Shocker.

He brings archeological evidence, and that's unbiased by any standard.

[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:

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.

Paul knowing Peter and James IS a primary source. Multiple sources besides Paul attest to this.

The onus is on you to prove it DIDN'T happen. And then to explain why James and Peter MADE UP Jesus.

We'll wait....

That’s not how it works. The level of certainty goes up with more (any) primary sources.

Nope. We have a great primary source in the fact of Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter. Other sources also attest to this meeting. You're unable to disprove the sources or to explain why Paul, Jesus and James made Jesus up.

Case closed. As Bart says, Paul's meeting with Peter and James is "pretty much the death knell for mythicism, as some of them will agree."

Paul isn't an independent source no matter how you slice it. Plus, he's not an eyewitness.

At best, he knew people who told him about Jesus.

OK, explain why James and Peter made Jesus up. Bring some evidence to prove they did.

[Anonymous]

The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

[Anonymous]

Jesus deniers (I'm talking to you, "likely existed" people), how does it feel to be in the company of Holocaust deniers and flat earthers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[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:

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.

Paul knowing Peter and James IS a primary source. Multiple sources besides Paul attest to this.

The onus is on you to prove it DIDN'T happen. And then to explain why James and Peter MADE UP Jesus.

We'll wait....

That’s not how it works. The level of certainty goes up with more (any) primary sources.

Nope. We have a great primary source in the fact of Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter. Other sources also attest to this meeting. You're unable to disprove the sources or to explain why Paul, Jesus and James made Jesus up.

Case closed. As Bart says, Paul's meeting with Peter and James is "pretty much the death knell for mythicism, as some of them will agree."

Paul isn't an independent source no matter how you slice it. Plus, he's not an eyewitness.

At best, he knew people who told him about Jesus.

OK, explain why James and Peter made Jesus up. Bring some evidence to prove they did.

I didn’t claim that they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Lies & irrelevant “evidence”.

We already agreed the list was secondary sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Lies & irrelevant “evidence”.

We already agreed the list was secondary sources.

No, you have a fetish for pretending people agree with you. Icky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Paul knowing Peter and James IS a primary source. Multiple sources besides Paul attest to this.

The onus is on you to prove it DIDN'T happen. And then to explain why James and Peter MADE UP Jesus.

We'll wait....

That’s not how it works. The level of certainty goes up with more (any) primary sources.

Nope. We have a great primary source in the fact of Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter. Other sources also attest to this meeting. You're unable to disprove the sources or to explain why Paul, Jesus and James made Jesus up.

Case closed. As Bart says, Paul's meeting with Peter and James is "pretty much the death knell for mythicism, as some of them will agree."

Paul isn't an independent source no matter how you slice it. Plus, he's not an eyewitness.

At best, he knew people who told him about Jesus.

OK, explain why James and Peter made Jesus up. Bring some evidence to prove they did.

I didn’t claim that they did.

Yes, you effectively did claim they made it up (your word games are as transparent as they are childish).

Again, what's your explanation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Lies & irrelevant “evidence”.

We already agreed the list was secondary sources.

No, you have a fetish for pretending people agree with you. Icky.

But, but, scholars on DCUM agreed a few weeks ago that it was "most likely." This is what the world has been waiting for!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Lies & irrelevant “evidence”.

We already agreed the list was secondary sources.

Point out the lies. Point out the irrelevant evidence.

Oh wait, you can't. Despite your impressive scholarly credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Lies & irrelevant “evidence”.

We already agreed the list was secondary sources.

No, you have a fetish for pretending people agree with you. Icky.

But, but, scholars on DCUM agreed a few weeks ago that it was "most likely." This is what the world has been waiting for!

Have a link for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Lies & irrelevant “evidence”.

We already agreed the list was secondary sources.

Point out the lies. Point out the irrelevant evidence.

Oh wait, you can't. Despite your impressive scholarly credentials.

Which include staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and Paul isn't 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 Jesus deniers aka mythicism.

5. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers, win international renown, and make millions by proving Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because the world is watching what DCUM decides.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of Jesus' existence. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus"), earn millions or win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

Lies & irrelevant “evidence”.

We already agreed the list was secondary sources.

Point out the lies. Point out the irrelevant evidence.

Oh wait, you can't. Despite your impressive scholarly credentials.

Nobody said “”likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly””.