If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, atheists are wrong, because if you are an American, in America, people have the right to believe in any religion they want. You can choose to not believe in religion. You can say you don’t believe in the supernatural.

Yep! And I think the world would be better if they chose that. Maybe if we discussed it more and people looked at the evidence for themselves, they would.

But you can’t make thar choice for everyone. Your idea of right for yourself isn’t right for everyone else.

We agree on this principle. But then why are religious people trying to legislate what a woman can do with her body?

You should move to a country with state mandated atheism and enjoy life with like minded individuals.

Now you can F-off, this is my country too. And I love it.

If you think denying the historical man named Jesus is honest, truthful, and factual, you aren’t going to where the evidence goes.

I don't deny historical man Jesus. I have seen scholarship that I accept because I am logical. But when I ask you for similar evidence of his divinity or the supernatural, suddenly, the rules are different. It's hypocrisy.

You are pushing lies and mistruth, something atheists supposedly pride themselves on…being truthful, considering facts, examining evidence.

I am doing nothing of the sort. This is a lie. You are lying.

You are a hypocrite and no better than people you make fun of for believing in “the supernatural.” Plus, you don’t believe in freedom of religion, a core belief and right all Americans are entitled to under the law.

Lies again. I do believe in freedom of religion. I want people to choose it based on facts and evidence. Many religious people want to TAKE AWAY people's right to choose.

See the difference?

Apparently, your facts and evidence are the only valid ones. And that's a problem because you are far from being an authority on anything.

Again, this is entirely off topic in this thread. You have created a strawman so you can knock it down. We are discussing Jesus' existence not his divinity or the "evils" of religion.

It's entirely relevant and on-topic. Why would Jesus' existence matter if he was not divine?

The rest of your answer is non-sequitur .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do we even know he was a brother? Not the cousin?

The early Christian evangelists are obviously biased.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

I’m a different atheist. I DGAF what people believe or do in their own home. I only have an issue when they try to force their religious beliefs on me. Hello, SCOTUS with extremist religious agenda.

That’s not really relevant for this thread 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: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.

+1

PP doesn’t have a valid comment so she continues to push it. Disgusting.

[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: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)

These are not quotes from me. You stated trained historians were not comparing the denial of the historical certainty of Jesus to the denial of the holocaust, that it was something I made up. That’s absolutely a lie. I don’t have the training or education to make that judgement. Professors and trained historians are the ones who believe the comparison is appropriate.

Stop lying about me. Also realize that the reason professional historians make that comparison is because they are certain Christ lived; and the people who deny that fact are bigoted fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, atheists are wrong, because if you are an American, in America, people have the right to believe in any religion they want. You can choose to not believe in religion. You can say you don’t believe in the supernatural.

Yep! And I think the world would be better if they chose that. Maybe if we discussed it more and people looked at the evidence for themselves, they would.

But you can’t make thar choice for everyone. Your idea of right for yourself isn’t right for everyone else.

We agree on this principle. But then why are religious people trying to legislate what a woman can do with her body?

You should move to a country with state mandated atheism and enjoy life with like minded individuals.

Now you can F-off, this is my country too. And I love it.

If you think denying the historical man named Jesus is honest, truthful, and factual, you aren’t going to where the evidence goes.

I don't deny historical man Jesus. I have seen scholarship that I accept because I am logical. But when I ask you for similar evidence of his divinity or the supernatural, suddenly, the rules are different. It's hypocrisy.

You are pushing lies and mistruth, something atheists supposedly pride themselves on…being truthful, considering facts, examining evidence.

I am doing nothing of the sort. This is a lie. You are lying.

You are a hypocrite and no better than people you make fun of for believing in “the supernatural.” Plus, you don’t believe in freedom of religion, a core belief and right all Americans are entitled to under the law.

Lies again. I do believe in freedom of religion. I want people to choose it based on facts and evidence. Many religious people want to TAKE AWAY people's right to choose.

See the difference?

Apparently, your facts and evidence are the only valid ones. And that's a problem because you are far from being an authority on anything.

Again, this is entirely off topic in this thread. You have created a strawman so you can knock it down. We are discussing Jesus' existence not his divinity or the "evils" of religion.

It's entirely relevant and on-topic. Why would Jesus' existence matter if he was not divine?

The rest of your answer is non-sequitur .

Because someone who exists in the historical record is considered historical.

Historians are concerned with history.

There’s more evidence for Jesus as a historical person than 99.9% of the people who lived during his time period.

[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: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)

These are not quotes from me. You stated trained historians were not comparing the denial of the historical certainty of Jesus to the denial of the holocaust, that it was something I made up. That’s absolutely a lie. I don’t have the training or education to make that judgement. Professors and trained historians are the ones who believe the comparison is appropriate.

Stop lying about me. Also realize that the reason professional historians make that comparison is because they are certain Christ lived; and the people who deny that fact are bigoted fools.

The people quoted above are not historians. They are theologists with deep religious beliefs (one formerly). Mostly evangelicals.

Maybe that’s why they are incorrectly drawing parallels. Comparing modern events with ancient history is not valid. When you look at the level of available evidence it’s really a false equivalency.

[Anonymous]

Perrin: Perrin earned a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Johns Hopkins University and Master of Divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary. He then earned a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Marquette University.

McClymond: Michael McClymond is Professor of Modern Christianity at Saint Louis University. He was educated at Northwestern University (B.A.), Yale University (M.Div.), and the University of Chicago (M.A., Ph.D.), and has held teaching or research appointments at Wheaton College (IL), Westmont College, the University of California–San Diego, Emory University, Yale University, and University of Birmingham (UK).

Ehrman: He began studying the Bible, biblical theology, and biblical languages at Moody Bible Institute,[1] where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[2] He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree. He received his PhD (in 1985) and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger. Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.

He subsequently left evangelicalism and returned to the Episcopal Church, where he remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][6]

Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the director of graduate studies and the chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Piper: He attended Wheaton College between 1964 and 1968, majoring in literature and minoring in philosophy. Studying romantic literature with Clyde Kilby led him to take particular interest in poetry,[17] Piper has published several books of poetry,[18] and continues to pursue, with his poetry, the deeper reality of personal,[19] theological [20] and social [21] reality.

Piper received his Doctor of Theology degree in New Testament studies at the University of Munich, Germany (1971–1974) under Leonhard Goppelt. His dissertation, Love Your Enemies, was published by Cambridge University Press and Baker Book House. Upon completion of his doctorate, Piper taught biblical studies at Bethel University in Saint Paul, Minnesota, for six years between 1974 and 1980.[31]

Nope, they are all scholars. What is your degree in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, atheists are wrong, because if you are an American, in America, people have the right to believe in any religion they want. You can choose to not believe in religion. You can say you don’t believe in the supernatural.

Yep! And I think the world would be better if they chose that. Maybe if we discussed it more and people looked at the evidence for themselves, they would.

But you can’t make thar choice for everyone. Your idea of right for yourself isn’t right for everyone else.

We agree on this principle. But then why are religious people trying to legislate what a woman can do with her body?

You should move to a country with state mandated atheism and enjoy life with like minded individuals.

Now you can F-off, this is my country too. And I love it.

If you think denying the historical man named Jesus is honest, truthful, and factual, you aren’t going to where the evidence goes.

I don't deny historical man Jesus. I have seen scholarship that I accept because I am logical. But when I ask you for similar evidence of his divinity or the supernatural, suddenly, the rules are different. It's hypocrisy.

You are pushing lies and mistruth, something atheists supposedly pride themselves on…being truthful, considering facts, examining evidence.

I am doing nothing of the sort. This is a lie. You are lying.

You are a hypocrite and no better than people you make fun of for believing in “the supernatural.” Plus, you don’t believe in freedom of religion, a core belief and right all Americans are entitled to under the law.

Lies again. I do believe in freedom of religion. I want people to choose it based on facts and evidence. Many religious people want to TAKE AWAY people's right to choose.

See the difference?

Apparently, your facts and evidence are the only valid ones. And that's a problem because you are far from being an authority on anything.

Again, this is entirely off topic in this thread. You have created a strawman so you can knock it down. We are discussing Jesus' existence not his divinity or the "evils" of religion.

It's entirely relevant and on-topic. Why would Jesus' existence matter if he was not divine?

The rest of your answer is non-sequitur .

Because someone who exists in the historical record is considered historical.

Historians are concerned with history.

There’s more evidence for Jesus as a historical person than 99.9% of the people who lived during his time period.

Does it matter if a guy named Howard lived in St. Louis in 1941?

Would it matter if evidence was shown he was a supernatural god with the power to raise the dead and turn water into wine?

Answers: No and Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, atheists are wrong, because if you are an American, in America, people have the right to believe in any religion they want. You can choose to not believe in religion. You can say you don’t believe in the supernatural.

Yep! And I think the world would be better if they chose that. Maybe if we discussed it more and people looked at the evidence for themselves, they would.

But you can’t make thar choice for everyone. Your idea of right for yourself isn’t right for everyone else.

We agree on this principle. But then why are religious people trying to legislate what a woman can do with her body?

You should move to a country with state mandated atheism and enjoy life with like minded individuals.

Now you can F-off, this is my country too. And I love it.

If you think denying the historical man named Jesus is honest, truthful, and factual, you aren’t going to where the evidence goes.

I don't deny historical man Jesus. I have seen scholarship that I accept because I am logical. But when I ask you for similar evidence of his divinity or the supernatural, suddenly, the rules are different. It's hypocrisy.

You are pushing lies and mistruth, something atheists supposedly pride themselves on…being truthful, considering facts, examining evidence.

I am doing nothing of the sort. This is a lie. You are lying.

You are a hypocrite and no better than people you make fun of for believing in “the supernatural.” Plus, you don’t believe in freedom of religion, a core belief and right all Americans are entitled to under the law.

Lies again. I do believe in freedom of religion. I want people to choose it based on facts and evidence. Many religious people want to TAKE AWAY people's right to choose.

See the difference?

Apparently, your facts and evidence are the only valid ones. And that's a problem because you are far from being an authority on anything.

Again, this is entirely off topic in this thread. You have created a strawman so you can knock it down. We are discussing Jesus' existence not his divinity or the "evils" of religion.

It's entirely relevant and on-topic. Why would Jesus' existence matter if he was not divine?

The rest of your answer is non-sequitur .

Because someone who exists in the historical record is considered historical.

Historians are concerned with history.

There’s more evidence for Jesus as a historical person than 99.9% of the people who lived during his time period.

Does it matter if a guy named Howard lived in St. Louis in 1941?

Would it matter if evidence was shown he was a supernatural god with the power to raise the dead and turn water into wine?

Answers: No and Yes.

You can argue uselessly about your uneducated opinion daily for the rest of your life. The scholars, academics, professors, and professionally trained historians think you look and sound foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perrin: Perrin earned a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Johns Hopkins University and Master of Divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary. He then earned a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Marquette University.

McClymond: Michael McClymond is Professor of Modern Christianity at Saint Louis University. He was educated at Northwestern University (B.A.), Yale University (M.Div.), and the University of Chicago (M.A., Ph.D.), and has held teaching or research appointments at Wheaton College (IL), Westmont College, the University of California–San Diego, Emory University, Yale University, and University of Birmingham (UK).

Ehrman: He began studying the Bible, biblical theology, and biblical languages at Moody Bible Institute,[1] where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[2] He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree. He received his PhD (in 1985) and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger. Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.

He subsequently left evangelicalism and returned to the Episcopal Church, where he remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][6]

Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the director of graduate studies and the chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Piper: He attended Wheaton College between 1964 and 1968, majoring in literature and minoring in philosophy. Studying romantic literature with Clyde Kilby led him to take particular interest in poetry,[17] Piper has published several books of poetry,[18] and continues to pursue, with his poetry, the deeper reality of personal,[19] theological [20] and social [21] reality.

Piper received his Doctor of Theology degree in New Testament studies at the University of Munich, Germany (1971–1974) under Leonhard Goppelt. His dissertation, Love Your Enemies, was published by Cambridge University Press and Baker Book House. Upon completion of his doctorate, Piper taught biblical studies at Bethel University in Saint Paul, Minnesota, for six years between 1974 and 1980.[31]

Nope, they are all scholars. What is your degree in?

Thanks for proving my point. They are evangelical theologians, not historians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, atheists are wrong, because if you are an American, in America, people have the right to believe in any religion they want. You can choose to not believe in religion. You can say you don’t believe in the supernatural.

Yep! And I think the world would be better if they chose that. Maybe if we discussed it more and people looked at the evidence for themselves, they would.

But you can’t make thar choice for everyone. Your idea of right for yourself isn’t right for everyone else.

We agree on this principle. But then why are religious people trying to legislate what a woman can do with her body?

You should move to a country with state mandated atheism and enjoy life with like minded individuals.

Now you can F-off, this is my country too. And I love it.

If you think denying the historical man named Jesus is honest, truthful, and factual, you aren’t going to where the evidence goes.

I don't deny historical man Jesus. I have seen scholarship that I accept because I am logical. But when I ask you for similar evidence of his divinity or the supernatural, suddenly, the rules are different. It's hypocrisy.

You are pushing lies and mistruth, something atheists supposedly pride themselves on…being truthful, considering facts, examining evidence.

I am doing nothing of the sort. This is a lie. You are lying.

You are a hypocrite and no better than people you make fun of for believing in “the supernatural.” Plus, you don’t believe in freedom of religion, a core belief and right all Americans are entitled to under the law.

Lies again. I do believe in freedom of religion. I want people to choose it based on facts and evidence. Many religious people want to TAKE AWAY people's right to choose.

See the difference?

Apparently, your facts and evidence are the only valid ones. And that's a problem because you are far from being an authority on anything.

Again, this is entirely off topic in this thread. You have created a strawman so you can knock it down. We are discussing Jesus' existence not his divinity or the "evils" of religion.

It's entirely relevant and on-topic. Why would Jesus' existence matter if he was not divine?

The rest of your answer is non-sequitur .

Because someone who exists in the historical record is considered historical.

Historians are concerned with history.

There’s more evidence for Jesus as a historical person than 99.9% of the people who lived during his time period.

Does it matter if a guy named Howard lived in St. Louis in 1941?

Would it matter if evidence was shown he was a supernatural god with the power to raise the dead and turn water into wine?

Answers: No and Yes.

I think it’s interesting to see how a religion was formed. Was there really some guy walking around saying these things? And people took him seriously? Or was some guy doing something else that was misinterpreted? Or who knows - it could be anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

The answer to your question is the First Council of Nicaea.

Thread closed.

You’re welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perrin: Perrin earned a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Johns Hopkins University and Master of Divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary. He then earned a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Marquette University.

McClymond: Michael McClymond is Professor of Modern Christianity at Saint Louis University. He was educated at Northwestern University (B.A.), Yale University (M.Div.), and the University of Chicago (M.A., Ph.D.), and has held teaching or research appointments at Wheaton College (IL), Westmont College, the University of California–San Diego, Emory University, Yale University, and University of Birmingham (UK).

Ehrman: He began studying the Bible, biblical theology, and biblical languages at Moody Bible Institute,[1] where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[2] He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree. He received his PhD (in 1985) and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger. Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.

He subsequently left evangelicalism and returned to the Episcopal Church, where he remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][6]

Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the director of graduate studies and the chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Piper: He attended Wheaton College between 1964 and 1968, majoring in literature and minoring in philosophy. Studying romantic literature with Clyde Kilby led him to take particular interest in poetry,[17] Piper has published several books of poetry,[18] and continues to pursue, with his poetry, the deeper reality of personal,[19] theological [20] and social [21] reality.

Piper received his Doctor of Theology degree in New Testament studies at the University of Munich, Germany (1971–1974) under Leonhard Goppelt. His dissertation, Love Your Enemies, was published by Cambridge University Press and Baker Book House. Upon completion of his doctorate, Piper taught biblical studies at Bethel University in Saint Paul, Minnesota, for six years between 1974 and 1980.[31]

Nope, they are all scholars. What is your degree in?

Thanks for proving my point. They are evangelical theologians, not historians.

You’ve got no degree, and are disparaging actual scholars, academics, professors, authors, etc. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do we even know he was a brother? Not the cousin?

The early Christian evangelists are obviously biased.

Well I guess there wasn't an independent unbiased observer present at both births. Regardless, he is an eyewitness to the various events in Jesus' life. Did he ascribe some events to supernatural causes? Yes. Does that make his observations invalid or his conclusions invalid? Again, claiming that there are special people who provide unbiased independent observations of history is ludicrous. I gather you fall for a lot of fake news from your special observers of history.