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: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.

So you are telling me how I should think and feel about my religion? Why? As an atheist- why do you care about Jesus and why do you care about how I practice my religion? Can I tell you how to think and feel about any subject? You are crazy!!

His physical existence doesn’t affect you either way. Millions of Christians probably never gave it a second thought.

Why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

Are you an atheist? You have no belief in God; how does the historical existence of Jesus affect you?

If the reason you don’t believe in God is your desire for absolute certainty in His existence, does that cloud your thinking?

Lots of historians and archaeologists and professors of the Classics aren’t religious and know historical Jesus existed…it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a historical fact.

No atheist will explain why they are concerned about the historicity of Jesus? Does their non-belief in religion cloud their judgment and make it so they can’t accept historical facts because they have an agenda?

I don’t need to prove he absolutely lived; every historian and scholar in the academic world has already done that. You are the one with the problem with history not linking up with your personal beliefs and feeling as if denying Jesus will validate your disbelief.

After all, the man who claimed to be the Son Of God creating the world’s largest religion is mighty inconvenient, isn’t it?

I do think it’s very likely that he lived, but I don’t have any skin in the game either way. It doesn’t affect me one way or another.

I think this is an interesting exercise to explore evidence, proofs, “truths”, and various levels of critical thinking.

“Every historian and scholar” has NOT proven that he “absolutely lived”. There is strong secondary evidence that he did so many do “accept” that he lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one has denied his existence. Your distasteful posts are off topic.

+2. It’s gross that people are making these comparisons.

It’s a historical comparison and illustrates how people who deny history are the same. They disregard history to further their inaccurate and misleading agendas.

It’s not a good comparison, though. That you think it is is ridiculous. And I wouldn’t agree that your agenda isn’t also inaccurate or misleading.

+1

It’s a poor comparison. And also irrelevant on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Capitalizing “teacher” is a disqualifier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So you are telling me how I should think and feel about my religion? Why? As an atheist- why do you care about Jesus and why do you care about how I practice my religion? Can I tell you how to think and feel about any subject? You are crazy!!

His physical existence doesn’t affect you either way. Millions of Christians probably never gave it a second thought.

Why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

Are you an atheist? You have no belief in God; how does the historical existence of Jesus affect you?

If the reason you don’t believe in God is your desire for absolute certainty in His existence, does that cloud your thinking?

Lots of historians and archaeologists and professors of the Classics aren’t religious and know historical Jesus existed…it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a historical fact.

No atheist will explain why they are concerned about the historicity of Jesus? Does their non-belief in religion cloud their judgment and make it so they can’t accept historical facts because they have an agenda?

I don’t need to prove he absolutely lived; every historian and scholar in the academic world has already done that. You are the one with the problem with history not linking up with your personal beliefs and feeling as if denying Jesus will validate your disbelief.

After all, the man who claimed to be the Son Of God creating the world’s largest religion is mighty inconvenient, isn’t it?

I do think it’s very likely that he lived, but I don’t have any skin in the game either way. It doesn’t affect me one way or another.

I think this is an interesting exercise to explore evidence, proofs, “truths”, and various levels of critical thinking.

“Every historian and scholar” has NOT proven that he “absolutely lived”. There is strong secondary evidence that he did so many do “accept” that he lived.

So you are an atheist who has spent how many hours if their life thinking about Jesus?

Any atheist who has commented multiple times and debated here: how many comments have you contributed? How much “research” have you done about Jesus? How many hours of your atheist life have you spent thinking about Jesus? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Capitalizing “teacher” is a disqualifier.

says the person who doesn’t even have a college degree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So you are telling me how I should think and feel about my religion? Why? As an atheist- why do you care about Jesus and why do you care about how I practice my religion? Can I tell you how to think and feel about any subject? You are crazy!!

His physical existence doesn’t affect you either way. Millions of Christians probably never gave it a second thought.

Why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

Are you an atheist? You have no belief in God; how does the historical existence of Jesus affect you?

If the reason you don’t believe in God is your desire for absolute certainty in His existence, does that cloud your thinking?

Lots of historians and archaeologists and professors of the Classics aren’t religious and know historical Jesus existed…it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a historical fact.

No atheist will explain why they are concerned about the historicity of Jesus? Does their non-belief in religion cloud their judgment and make it so they can’t accept historical facts because they have an agenda?

I don’t need to prove he absolutely lived; every historian and scholar in the academic world has already done that. You are the one with the problem with history not linking up with your personal beliefs and feeling as if denying Jesus will validate your disbelief.

After all, the man who claimed to be the Son Of God creating the world’s largest religion is mighty inconvenient, isn’t it?

I do think it’s very likely that he lived, but I don’t have any skin in the game either way. It doesn’t affect me one way or another.

I think this is an interesting exercise to explore evidence, proofs, “truths”, and various levels of critical thinking.

“Every historian and scholar” has NOT proven that he “absolutely lived”. There is strong secondary evidence that he did so many do “accept” that he lived.

So you are an atheist who has spent how many hours if their life thinking about Jesus?

Any atheist who has commented multiple times and debated here: how many comments have you contributed? How much “research” have you done about Jesus? How many hours of your atheist life have you spent thinking about Jesus? Why?

I really don’t think much about “Jesus” himself. More about the historical records - and lack thereof. And historian interpretations. I enjoy reading about history. And debunking irrational claims.

I did spend a good amount of time teaching others about probability and other common definitions.

So why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitalizing “teacher” is a disqualifier.

says the person who doesn’t even have a college degree

You seem a bit obsessed with “credentials”. Maybe because you feel a little insecure about your own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So you are telling me how I should think and feel about my religion? Why? As an atheist- why do you care about Jesus and why do you care about how I practice my religion? Can I tell you how to think and feel about any subject? You are crazy!!

His physical existence doesn’t affect you either way. Millions of Christians probably never gave it a second thought.

Why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

Are you an atheist? You have no belief in God; how does the historical existence of Jesus affect you?

If the reason you don’t believe in God is your desire for absolute certainty in His existence, does that cloud your thinking?

Lots of historians and archaeologists and professors of the Classics aren’t religious and know historical Jesus existed…it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a historical fact.

No atheist will explain why they are concerned about the historicity of Jesus? Does their non-belief in religion cloud their judgment and make it so they can’t accept historical facts because they have an agenda?

I don’t need to prove he absolutely lived; every historian and scholar in the academic world has already done that. You are the one with the problem with history not linking up with your personal beliefs and feeling as if denying Jesus will validate your disbelief.

After all, the man who claimed to be the Son Of God creating the world’s largest religion is mighty inconvenient, isn’t it?

I do think it’s very likely that he lived, but I don’t have any skin in the game either way. It doesn’t affect me one way or another.

I think this is an interesting exercise to explore evidence, proofs, “truths”, and various levels of critical thinking.

“Every historian and scholar” has NOT proven that he “absolutely lived”. There is strong secondary evidence that he did so many do “accept” that he lived.

So you are an atheist who has spent how many hours if their life thinking about Jesus?

Any atheist who has commented multiple times and debated here: how many comments have you contributed? How much “research” have you done about Jesus? How many hours of your atheist life have you spent thinking about Jesus? Why?

I really don’t think much about “Jesus” himself. More about the historical records - and lack thereof. And historian interpretations. I enjoy reading about history. And debunking irrational claims.

I did spend a good amount of time teaching others about probability and other common definitions.

So why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

So you aren’t a historian and don’t have any training in that field?

You must know there are criteria historians use to establish facts, right? And that you aren’t trained in that field?

What historical records pertaining to the historical Jesus have you examined personally? Have you translated any?

[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?

Because theocrats are working hard to take away our civil rights.

[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.

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?

Because theocrats are working hard to take away our civil rights.

Historical Jesus isn’t taking your rights away.

[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: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.

So you are telling me how I should think and feel about my religion? Why? As an atheist- why do you care about Jesus and why do you care about how I practice my religion? Can I tell you how to think and feel about any subject? You are crazy!!

His physical existence doesn’t affect you either way. Millions of Christians probably never gave it a second thought.

Why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

Are you an atheist? You have no belief in God; how does the historical existence of Jesus affect you?

If the reason you don’t believe in God is your desire for absolute certainty in His existence, does that cloud your thinking?

Lots of historians and archaeologists and professors of the Classics aren’t religious and know historical Jesus existed…it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a historical fact.

No atheist will explain why they are concerned about the historicity of Jesus? Does their non-belief in religion cloud their judgment and make it so they can’t accept historical facts because they have an agenda?

I don’t need to prove he absolutely lived; every historian and scholar in the academic world has already done that. You are the one with the problem with history not linking up with your personal beliefs and feeling as if denying Jesus will validate your disbelief.

After all, the man who claimed to be the Son Of God creating the world’s largest religion is mighty inconvenient, isn’t it?

I do think it’s very likely that he lived, but I don’t have any skin in the game either way. It doesn’t affect me one way or another.

I think this is an interesting exercise to explore evidence, proofs, “truths”, and various levels of critical thinking.

“Every historian and scholar” has NOT proven that he “absolutely lived”. There is strong secondary evidence that he did so many do “accept” that he lived.

So you are an atheist who has spent how many hours if their life thinking about Jesus?

Any atheist who has commented multiple times and debated here: how many comments have you contributed? How much “research” have you done about Jesus? How many hours of your atheist life have you spent thinking about Jesus? Why?

I really don’t think much about “Jesus” himself. More about the historical records - and lack thereof. And historian interpretations. I enjoy reading about history. And debunking irrational claims.

I did spend a good amount of time teaching others about probability and other common definitions.

So why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived?

Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning?

So you aren’t a historian and don’t have any training in that field?

You must know there are criteria historians use to establish facts, right? And that you aren’t trained in that field?

What historical records pertaining to the historical Jesus have you examined personally? Have you translated any?

Because of the lack of primary sources from this era, much of what historians publish are their interpretations. The more supporting evidence we find, especially primary, the higher our confidence in those interpretations. These interpretations can evolve over time as more evidence becomes available and/or our perceptions change. No (social) scientist would claim anything from ancient history is “absolutely” true. It can be “settled” at least until more information is available. They will “accept” it. Use it as an assumption and move forward. That’s not “absolute”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one has denied his existence. Your distasteful posts are off topic.

+2. It’s gross that people are making these comparisons.

It’s a historical comparison and illustrates how people who deny history are the same. They disregard history to further their inaccurate and misleading agendas.

It’s not a good comparison, though. That you think it is is ridiculous. And I wouldn’t agree that your agenda isn’t also inaccurate or misleading.

Historians and scholars and professors think it’s very apt to compare the two.

No, no they don’t. You do. But you’re trying to use a horrifying event in recent, modern history to shut down conversation about a person who existed 2,000 years ago. It’s disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Because theocrats are working hard to take away our civil rights.

Historical Jesus isn’t taking your rights away.

No, because he's just a dead guy.

But people are doing it in his name because they believe stuff with no evidentiary basis.

I think the world would be a better place - a MUCH better place - if people didn't believe in supernatural things.

That's why atheists care.

[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: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.

No one has denied his existence. Your distasteful posts are off topic.

+2. It’s gross that people are making these comparisons.

It’s a historical comparison and illustrates how people who deny history are the same. They disregard history to further their inaccurate and misleading agendas.

It’s not a good comparison, though. That you think it is is ridiculous. And I wouldn’t agree that your agenda isn’t also inaccurate or misleading.

Historians and scholars and professors think it’s very apt to compare the two.

No, no they don’t. You do. But you’re trying to use a horrifying event in recent, modern history to shut down conversation about a person who existed 2,000 years ago. It’s disgusting.

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)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Other than Jesus' brother and the apostles?

Keyword: independent

And claiming supernatural events lowers confidence in a source.

So if Jesus' brother, James, told you the sky was blue, you would have some doubts? All observers are biased. To claim that there are special independent observers of history is ludicrous.