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:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold.

If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed.

Yes they are. There’s no may; Jesus existed. Have you watched this? You should.

[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:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold.

If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed.

“Historians have not tried to find other people who "walked the earth" over 2,000 years ago the way they've scoured every corner looking for this Jesus guy - and still it's conjecture.“

12/19 15:35

No, every respected historian in the Western Hemisphere accepts the historicity of Jesus. Another fool looking foolish.

Not only does this poster dent Jesus, they speak for all historians and archeologists. From what base of knowledge?

Conjecture just means we don’t have hard evidence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

That PP isn’t denying that he existed. Just that we don’t have hard evidence.

[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:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold.

If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed.

Yes they are. There’s no may; Jesus existed. Have you watched this? You should.

Again, that isn’t DENYING his existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Maybe you should re-read your sources.

The consensus is that he likely existed. No one has definite proof.

Jesus existed.

There are pages and pages of posts like this that do not accept Jesus existed.

[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:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Maybe you should re-read your sources.

The consensus is that he likely existed. No one has definite proof.

Jesus existed.

There are pages and pages of posts like this that do not accept Jesus existed.

Right. He most likely existed.

No one is denying that he did.

[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:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold.

If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed.

“Historians have not tried to find other people who "walked the earth" over 2,000 years ago the way they've scoured every corner looking for this Jesus guy - and still it's conjecture.“

12/19 15:35

No, every respected historian in the Western Hemisphere accepts the historicity of Jesus. Another fool looking foolish.

Not only does this poster dent Jesus, they speak for all historians and archeologists. From what base of knowledge?

Conjecture just means we don’t have hard evidence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

That PP isn’t denying that he existed. Just that we don’t have hard evidence.

We do have hard evidence. You just don’t accept what every historian and respected in their field professional does.

What are your qualifications to assess the historicity of 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:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold.

If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed.

“Historians have not tried to find other people who "walked the earth" over 2,000 years ago the way they've scoured every corner looking for this Jesus guy - and still it's conjecture.“

12/19 15:35

No, every respected historian in the Western Hemisphere accepts the historicity of Jesus. Another fool looking foolish.

Not only does this poster dent Jesus, they speak for all historians and archeologists. From what base of knowledge?

Conjecture just means we don’t have hard evidence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

That PP isn’t denying that he existed. Just that we don’t have hard evidence.

We do have hard evidence. You just don’t accept what every historian and respected in their field professional does.

What are your qualifications to assess the historicity of Jesus?

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN56-ww[/youtube]

No, we don’t have hard evidence. No independent, contemporary report.

If we did, you would have produced it 20 pages ago and not resorted to ad hominems.

[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:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold.

If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed.

“Historians have not tried to find other people who "walked the earth" over 2,000 years ago the way they've scoured every corner looking for this Jesus guy - and still it's conjecture.“

12/19 15:35

No, every respected historian in the Western Hemisphere accepts the historicity of Jesus. Another fool looking foolish.

Not only does this poster dent Jesus, they speak for all historians and archeologists. From what base of knowledge?

Conjecture just means we don’t have hard evidence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

That PP isn’t denying that he existed. Just that we don’t have hard evidence.

We do have hard evidence. You just don’t accept what every historian and respected in their field professional does.

What are your qualifications to assess the historicity of Jesus?

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN56-ww[/youtube]

No, we don’t have hard evidence. No independent, contemporary report.

If we did, you would have produced it 20 pages ago and not resorted to ad hominems.

You are the holocaust/climate/flat earth kook. There’s tons of hard evidence as Bart explains. Have you watched the video? It’s not my personal evidence, I myself unearthed on a mission to the Holy Land. Comment on the YouTube video.

[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:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

That poster didn’t deny that Jesus existed. Read the bold.

If someone says “he may have existed” then they aren’t denying that he existed.

“Historians have not tried to find other people who "walked the earth" over 2,000 years ago the way they've scoured every corner looking for this Jesus guy - and still it's conjecture.“

12/19 15:35

No, every respected historian in the Western Hemisphere accepts the historicity of Jesus. Another fool looking foolish.

Not only does this poster dent Jesus, they speak for all historians and archeologists. From what base of knowledge?

Conjecture just means we don’t have hard evidence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

That PP isn’t denying that he existed. Just that we don’t have hard evidence.

We do have hard evidence. You just don’t accept what every historian and respected in their field professional does.

What are your qualifications to assess the historicity of Jesus?

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN56-ww[/youtube]

No, we don’t have hard evidence. No independent, contemporary report.

If we did, you would have produced it 20 pages ago and not resorted to ad hominems.

You are the holocaust/climate/flat earth kook. There’s tons of hard evidence as Bart explains. Have you watched the video? It’s not my personal evidence, I myself unearthed on a mission to the Holy Land. Comment on the YouTube video.

Again with the insults.

“Some guy knew his brother” isn’t “hard evidence”.

Anyway, most likely a man named Jesus did exist. We just don’t have hard evidence.

That’s not even the topic of this thread that you continue to derail with your insults and troll-like responses.

[Anonymous]

I respect Bart Ehrman, but interestingly on the other thread having Bart Ehrman books is something that makes you a "Christian-hating bigot."

I'd also point out that Bart is saying what most of us skeptics have been saying above: evidence of Jesus is circumstantial: the attestations of early sources, i.e., people who knew his brother and knew eye-witnesses. In other words, hearsay. Fine. But but at least admit, like Bart does, that that is all there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I respect Bart Ehrman, but interestingly on the other thread having Bart Ehrman books is something that makes you a "Christian-hating bigot."

I'd also point out that Bart is saying what most of us skeptics have been saying above: evidence of Jesus is circumstantial: the attestations of early sources, i.e., people who knew his brother and knew eye-witnesses. In other words, hearsay. Fine. But but at least admit, like Bart does, that that is all there is.

I recall Ehrman writing that there is evidence that Paul said he met Jesus's brother, James, and then Ehrman said "Why would Paul lie about that?" to which said to myself "Why wouldn't he?" and How would we know one way or the other?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I respect Bart Ehrman, but interestingly on the other thread having Bart Ehrman books is something that makes you a "Christian-hating bigot."

I'd also point out that Bart is saying what most of us skeptics have been saying above: evidence of Jesus is circumstantial: the attestations of early sources, i.e., people who knew his brother and knew eye-witnesses. In other words, hearsay. Fine. But but at least admit, like Bart does, that that is all there is.

I recall Ehrman writing that there is evidence that Paul said he met Jesus's brother, James, and then Ehrman said "Why would Paul lie about that?" to which said to myself "Why wouldn't he?" and How would we know one way or the other?"

“Why would he lie?”

Really some hard evidence there.

[Anonymous]

So really many here do not accept that Jesus was real. It’s so odd to make comment after comment that no one is rejecting the historicity of Jesus, and then a bunch of comments by different posters do just that.

You look foolish to the outside world asBart says. None of you can be involved in academia or you’d be laughed out the door. I really feel for Bart when the woman in the clip says “she sees no evidence of Jesus.” You can tell he’s frustrated and so over explaining the issue. He says outside your circle, nobody denies Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Guys stop feeding this troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So really many here do not accept that Jesus was real. It’s so odd to make comment after comment that no one is rejecting the historicity of Jesus, and then a bunch of comments by different posters do just that.

You look foolish to the outside world asBart says. None of you can be involved in academia or you’d be laughed out the door. I really feel for Bart when the woman in the clip says “she sees no evidence of Jesus.” You can tell he’s frustrated and so over explaining the issue. He says outside your circle, nobody denies Jesus.

I know you’re just a troll at this point but…

Nobody

Denied

Historical

Jesus