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: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.

There are 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:

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.

Having multiple eyewitnesses and also primary evidence certainly increases certainty.

[Anonymous]

This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

They look unreasonable on their own, nobody needs to help them.

Why do atheists care about Jesus?

[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.

I disagree. I believe the authorship was genuine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

There are definitely multiple theists here, and sometimes th the even talked to each other.

Don’t pretend, atheist Bart Ehrman is making you Jesus deniers look unreasonable all on his own. He called you guys foolish. The bit about being like Holocaust deniers and flat earthers came from 4-5 separate quotes posted by someone (not me) above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

There are definitely multiple theists here, and sometimes th the even talked to each other.

Don’t pretend, atheist Bart Ehrman is making you Jesus deniers look unreasonable all on his own. He called you guys foolish. The bit about being like Holocaust deniers and flat earthers came from 4-5 separate quotes posted by someone (not me) above.

The continued exploitation of the Holocaust to make some baseless comparison is really distasteful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

They look unreasonable on their own, nobody needs to help them.

Why do atheists care about Jesus?

We have nothing but interpretations of secondary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. It's inaccurate to claim otherwise.

Why do theists care about the historicity? They "believe" the story of him whether he actually existed or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

They look unreasonable on their own, nobody needs to help them.

Why do atheists care about Jesus?

We have nothing but interpretations of secondary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. It's inaccurate to claim otherwise.

Why do theists care about the historicity? They "believe" the story of him whether he actually existed or not.

Jesus Christ is our spiritual leader and through him we gain salvation. Knowing and acknowledging out Lord was a real man who died on the cross is part of our religion. That’s why Christians care.

Again, why do atheists care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

They look unreasonable on their own, nobody needs to help them.

Why do atheists care about Jesus?

We have nothing but interpretations of secondary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. It's inaccurate to claim otherwise.

Why do theists care about the historicity? They "believe" the story of him whether he actually existed or not.

Are you a Christian? Why do you care Jesus was a real man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

There are definitely multiple theists here, and sometimes th the even talked to each other.

Don’t pretend, atheist Bart Ehrman is making you Jesus deniers look unreasonable all on his own. He called you guys foolish. The bit about being like Holocaust deniers and flat earthers came from 4-5 separate quotes posted by someone (not me) above.

The continued exploitation of the Holocaust to make some baseless comparison is really distasteful.

If historians think it’s an apt comparison, that’s how deeply they believe Jesus lived as a man. Those who deny this historical fact are delusional as those people who deny the holocaust. They also compare people who deny climate change and people landing on the moon to those who deny Christ’s historical being. If the shoe fits, perhaps you should not put it on.

[Anonymous]

The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. (Nicholas Perrin)

Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus’ non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio. (Michael James McClymond)

One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust? (Bart Ehrman)

The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. (John Piper)

The Criteria of Authenticity are different methods of demonstrating the historical plausibility and probability of an event. When it comes to the study of the historical Jesus, if a saying of Jesus or event in the Gospels meets one or more of these criteria, it boosts the credibility of the event in question. We will explore and define each of these in more detail, but consider three of the criteria below:

The criterion of multiple attestation. If a saying or event is recorded in several different independent sources, it increases the likelihood that it occurred.

The criterion of dissimilarity (or double dissimilarity). If a saying or event of Jesus is different from the Judaism before him and also the early Christians after him, then it is more likely that Jesus himself originated this particular saying.

The criterion of embarrassment. If a saying or event is potentially unflattering or even embarrassing to Jesus or the Christian movement, then it is unlikely that it would be invented. Thus this raises the historical plausibility of the event in question.

These criteria are internal tests that can support the historicity of an event. Indeed, if we see enough of these sort of criteria, it boosts our confidence in the historical document overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

There are definitely multiple theists here, and sometimes th the even talked to each other.

Don’t pretend, atheist Bart Ehrman is making you Jesus deniers look unreasonable all on his own. He called you guys foolish. The bit about being like Holocaust deniers and flat earthers came from 4-5 separate quotes posted by someone (not me) above.

The continued exploitation of the Holocaust to make some baseless comparison is really distasteful.

If historians think it’s an apt comparison, that’s how deeply they believe Jesus lived as a man. Those who deny this historical fact are delusional as those people who deny the holocaust. They also compare people who deny climate change and people landing on the moon to those who deny Christ’s historical being. If the shoe fits, perhaps you should not put it on.

It’s truly tasteless. Particularly since no one here is denying his existence.

Plus we obviously have eyewitness accounts and archaeological artifacts for the Holocaust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

They look unreasonable on their own, nobody needs to help them.

Why do atheists care about Jesus?

We have nothing but interpretations of secondary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. It's inaccurate to claim otherwise.

Why do theists care about the historicity? They "believe" the story of him whether he actually existed or not.

Jesus Christ is our spiritual leader and through him we gain salvation. Knowing and acknowledging out Lord was a real man who died on the cross is part of our religion. That’s why Christians care.

Again, why do atheists care?

It’s the story that you find compelling. You know aspects of it aren’t true so why should it matter if an actual man lived or not?

His physical existence doesn’t affect you either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is 123 pages of one theist trying to make atheists look unreasonable and failing miserably.

There are definitely multiple theists here, and sometimes th the even talked to each other.

Don’t pretend, atheist Bart Ehrman is making you Jesus deniers look unreasonable all on his own. He called you guys foolish. The bit about being like Holocaust deniers and flat earthers came from 4-5 separate quotes posted by someone (not me) above.

The continued exploitation of the Holocaust to make some baseless comparison is really distasteful.

If historians think it’s an apt comparison, that’s how deeply they believe Jesus lived as a man. Those who deny this historical fact are delusional as those people who deny the holocaust. They also compare people who deny climate change and people landing on the moon to those who deny Christ’s historical being. If the shoe fits, perhaps you should not put it on.

It’s truly tasteless. Particularly since no one here is denying his existence.

Plus we obviously have eyewitness accounts and archaeological artifacts for the Holocaust.

I think it’s truly tasteless to deny the historicity of Christ and to deny the holcaust. Both are awful.