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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. …. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 16.

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Richard Burridge & Graham Gould. Jesus Now and Then. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004. ISBN 0802809774), 34

To argue that he didn’t exist means you think that is more likely he didn’t exist than did.

No one on this thread is denying his existence. Most likely he did live.

[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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

And as others have said before, you're on your own for this one. The vast scholarly consensus of several thousand classical and Biblical scholars finds the evidence at 17:19 to be convincing that Jesus definitely existed. At least you've learned the difference between primary and secondary sources, I guess?

Own it: Bart Ehrman likened you guys to Holocaust Deniers and flat earthers. Too bad you don't have any scholarly chops of your own to make real arguments.

DP. You’re being a bit extreme. I understand this poster is challenging your beliefs, but comparing them to holocaust deniers is just gross.

The historicity of Jesus is not a personally held belief, it’s a historical fact. That you can’t see the difference, you are either ignorant or willfully denying history.

It’s not a “fact”. It’s the current interpretations of secondary sources. No primary evidence. No independent eyewitnesses.

[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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

And as others have said before, you're on your own for this one. The vast scholarly consensus of several thousand classical and Biblical scholars finds the evidence at 17:19 to be convincing that Jesus definitely existed. At least you've learned the difference between primary and secondary sources, I guess?

Own it: Bart Ehrman likened you guys to Holocaust Deniers and flat earthers. Too bad you don't have any scholarly chops of your own to make real arguments.

Continue to play obtuse, but I’ve never denied his existence.

And many of those academics say that they “accept” that he existed, not that they are absolutely certain. What (social) scientist would say that?

I accept that the world is round, but I am not absolutely certain.

You’re welcome to believe that.

But we do have eyewitness accounts and primary sources that show that it’s a sphere.

[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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

And as others have said before, you're on your own for this one. The vast scholarly consensus of several thousand classical and Biblical scholars finds the evidence at 17:19 to be convincing that Jesus definitely existed. At least you've learned the difference between primary and secondary sources, I guess?

Own it: Bart Ehrman likened you guys to Holocaust Deniers and flat earthers. Too bad you don't have any scholarly chops of your own to make real arguments.

DP. You’re being a bit extreme. I understand this poster is challenging your beliefs, but comparing them to holocaust deniers is just gross.

It wasn’t me. Back around page 100, somebody else posted about 5 quotes from Bart Ehrman, among others, comparing Jesus deniers to Holocaust deniers.

But nobody here is denying his existence so…

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

John, the author of the gospel of that name never met Jesus. That assertion made here is unsupported. None of the writers of the gospels or Paul ever met Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. …. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 16.

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Richard Burridge & Graham Gould. Jesus Now and Then. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004. ISBN 0802809774), 34

To argue that he didn’t exist means you think that is more likely he didn’t exist than did.

No one on this thread is denying his existence. Most likely he did live.

Your grasp of English is poor. By saying most likely you ARe denying his existence. If you had no question of his existence, you wouldn't need to use probably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John, the author of the gospel of that name never met Jesus. That assertion made here is unsupported. None of the writers of the gospels or Paul ever met Jesus.

However, Paul met Jesus' brother, an eyewitness.

[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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

And as others have said before, you're on your own for this one. The vast scholarly consensus of several thousand classical and Biblical scholars finds the evidence at 17:19 to be convincing that Jesus definitely existed. At least you've learned the difference between primary and secondary sources, I guess?

Own it: Bart Ehrman likened you guys to Holocaust Deniers and flat earthers. Too bad you don't have any scholarly chops of your own to make real arguments.

Continue to play obtuse, but I’ve never denied his existence.

And many of those academics say that they “accept” that he existed, not that they are absolutely certain. What (social) scientist would say that?

I accept that the world is round, but I am not absolutely certain.

You’re welcome to believe that.

But we do have eyewitness accounts and primary sources that show that it’s a sphere.

Probably a sphere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John, the author of the gospel of that name never met Jesus. That assertion made here is unsupported. None of the writers of the gospels or Paul ever met Jesus.

However, Paul met Jesus' brother, an eyewitness.

I guess that's true. I can't dispute that. There is no gospel of James though.

[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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. …. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 16.

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Richard Burridge & Graham Gould. Jesus Now and Then. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004. ISBN 0802809774), 34

To argue that he didn’t exist means you think that is more likely he didn’t exist than did.

No one on this thread is denying his existence. Most likely he did live.

Your grasp of English is poor. By saying most likely you ARe denying his existence. If you had no question of his existence, you wouldn't need to use probably.

My English is fine. I’m not denying. For someone to deny his existence they think it’s more likely that he did NOT exist than he did.

Likely >50%
Not likely <50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John, the author of the gospel of that name never met Jesus. That assertion made here is unsupported. None of the writers of the gospels or Paul ever met Jesus.

However, Paul met Jesus' brother, an eyewitness.

I guess that's true. I can't dispute that. There is no gospel of James though.

And neither of them are independent/unbiased sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John, the author of the gospel of that name never met Jesus. That assertion made here is unsupported. None of the writers of the gospels or Paul ever met Jesus.

However, Paul met Jesus' brother, an eyewitness.

I guess that's true. I can't dispute that. There is no gospel of James though.

James may not have been literate. That doesn't make him unreliable as a narrator of events.

[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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

And as others have said before, you're on your own for this one. The vast scholarly consensus of several thousand classical and Biblical scholars finds the evidence at 17:19 to be convincing that Jesus definitely existed. At least you've learned the difference between primary and secondary sources, I guess?

Own it: Bart Ehrman likened you guys to Holocaust Deniers and flat earthers. Too bad you don't have any scholarly chops of your own to make real arguments.

Continue to play obtuse, but I’ve never denied his existence.

And many of those academics say that they “accept” that he existed, not that they are absolutely certain. What (social) scientist would say that?

I accept that the world is round, but I am not absolutely certain.

You’re welcome to believe that.

But we do have eyewitness accounts and primary sources that show that it’s a sphere.

Probably a sphere.

A reasonable position years ago before we had eyewitness accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John, the author of the gospel of that name never met Jesus. That assertion made here is unsupported. None of the writers of the gospels or Paul ever met Jesus.

However, Paul met Jesus' brother, an eyewitness.

I guess that's true. I can't dispute that. There is no gospel of James though.

And neither of them are independent/unbiased sources.

We have those too.

[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:

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?

As I've said before, I think it's very likely that a real dude named Jesus lived. But, just like many other aspects of ancient history, we don't have primary sources. We don't have independent eyewitness accounts. We don't have archaeological evidence. We are only have interpretations of secondary sources. So, I don't have other possible scenarios, but I do acknowledge that we don't have absolute certainty about much, including this, in ancient history. Certainly not without primary sources.

And as others have said before, you're on your own for this one. The vast scholarly consensus of several thousand classical and Biblical scholars finds the evidence at 17:19 to be convincing that Jesus definitely existed. At least you've learned the difference between primary and secondary sources, I guess?

Own it: Bart Ehrman likened you guys to Holocaust Deniers and flat earthers. Too bad you don't have any scholarly chops of your own to make real arguments.

Continue to play obtuse, but I’ve never denied his existence.

And many of those academics say that they “accept” that he existed, not that they are absolutely certain. What (social) scientist would say that?

I accept that the world is round, but I am not absolutely certain.

You’re welcome to believe that.

But we do have eyewitness accounts and primary sources that show that it’s a sphere.

Probably a sphere.

A reasonable position years ago before we had eyewitness accounts.

Those are biased accounts by people who stand to be benefit from pushing their round world theory.