Jesus' Historicity

[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:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

What mainstream view? By whom?

We have yet to see an independent historian support this "mainstream view".

I meant it when I said you should regroup. I think you know you've ventured so far to one extreme that no one-- no Christian and no Atheist-- is taking you seriously anymore.

It's not "extreme" to look to independent historians. Which independent historians support the "mainstream view" mentioned above?

Can you respond without personal attacks? Or maybe that's all you have.

[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:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

What mainstream view? By whom?

We have yet to see an independent historian support this "mainstream view".

I meant it when I said you should regroup. I think you know you've ventured so far to one extreme that no one-- no Christian and no Atheist-- is taking you seriously anymore.

It's not "extreme" to look to independent historians. Which independent historians support the "mainstream view" mentioned above?

Can you respond without personal attacks? Or maybe that's all you have.

That wasn't an attack. I'm just telling you what to work on.

[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:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

What mainstream view? By whom?

We have yet to see an independent historian support this "mainstream view".

I meant it when I said you should regroup. I think you know you've ventured so far to one extreme that no one-- no Christian and no Atheist-- is taking you seriously anymore.

It's not "extreme" to look to independent historians. Which independent historians support the "mainstream view" mentioned above?

Can you respond without personal attacks? Or maybe that's all you have.

That wasn't an attack. I'm just telling you what to work on.

So that’s a no. 👍

Guess that “mainstream view” isn’t so mainstream.

[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:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

What mainstream view? By whom?

We have yet to see an independent historian support this "mainstream view".

I meant it when I said you should regroup. I think you know you've ventured so far to one extreme that no one-- no Christian and no Atheist-- is taking you seriously anymore.

It's not "extreme" to look to independent historians. Which independent historians support the "mainstream view" mentioned above?

Can you respond without personal attacks? Or maybe that's all you have.

That wasn't an attack. I'm just telling you what to work on.

So that’s a no. 👍

Guess that “mainstream view” isn’t so mainstream.

Have fun!

[Anonymous]

NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

[Anonymous]

why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form

Seeking legit evidence of his historicity is not "determined to believe he never existed".

Not everyone just "believes" stories they are told.

[Anonymous]

This thread is getting repetitive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

So you are commenting and asking questions based on not actually following along.

OK. Provide the "significant and circumstantial evidence" in favor. There are numerous posts about non-Christian sources and their veracity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

People who study the region and time when Jesus is believed to have lived can't study Jesus because they're biased?

Keep digging that hole. You seem to be approaching the core.

Strawman. These are not just people who study the region and time.

People who are deeply religious, including someone who was a priest, are biased.

The Bible is not an independent primary source.

Nearly all sources from that period of time are biased. That isn't unique to the Bible. Ever read Herodotus? Do you think everything he wrote was true?

Please explain why people who do not believe in Christianity or the divinity of Jesus would be significantly biased towards concluding his historical existence.

Because their entire perspective and knowledgebase is centered on the bible.

Historians outside of religious circles have an independent perspectives and primary sources.

I don't care if Jesus-the-man existed or not. He certainly wasn't the son of God, because God does not exist.

You can surmise, based on all available evidence that he, or anyone from that long-ago time, existed, but there's no way to prove that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, a lot of people don't believe that at all. Some of them are atheists and some of them are people of other religions, e.g., Muslims or Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

People who study the region and time when Jesus is believed to have lived can't study Jesus because they're biased?

Keep digging that hole. You seem to be approaching the core.

Strawman. These are not just people who study the region and time.

People who are deeply religious, including someone who was a priest, are biased.

The Bible is not an independent primary source.

Nearly all sources from that period of time are biased. That isn't unique to the Bible. Ever read Herodotus? Do you think everything he wrote was true?

Please explain why people who do not believe in Christianity or the divinity of Jesus would be significantly biased towards concluding his historical existence.

Because their entire perspective and knowledgebase is centered on the bible.

Historians outside of religious circles have an independent perspectives and primary sources.

I don't care if Jesus-the-man existed or not. He certainly wasn't the son of God, because God does not exist.

You can surmise, based on all available evidence that he, or anyone from that long-ago time, existed, but there's no way to prove that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, a lot of people don't believe that at all. Some of them are atheists and some of them are people of other religions, e.g., Muslims or Jews.

Which evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

Quite a few historians were named early in this thread, both secular, non Christian, Jewish, ancient Roman and modern. We do have the archeological record to assist, proving the existence by name of Pontus Pilate. I guess those aren't good enough for you? I suspect nothing will ever be good enough for you. I can see why someone else said this thread is getting repetitive because it's arguing with someone for who nothing is ever good enough. I can see why this is just like arguing with a different kind of believer, who thinks the earth is really flat because it looks flat, and God created the world 5,000 years ago and put in those dinosaur fossils to fool people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

Quite a few historians were named early in this thread, both secular, non Christian, Jewish, ancient Roman and modern. We do have the archeological record to assist, proving the existence by name of Pontus Pilate. I guess those aren't good enough for you? I suspect nothing will ever be good enough for you. I can see why someone else said this thread is getting repetitive because it's arguing with someone for who nothing is ever good enough. I can see why this is just like arguing with a different kind of believer, who thinks the earth is really flat because it looks flat, and God created the world 5,000 years ago and put in those dinosaur fossils to fool people.

There was only one non-Bible-based historian mentioned and the only source he used was…the bible.

It’s getting “repetitive” because believers keep pushing the same obviously-biased “experts”.