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:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

You don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “begging the question” or the role of second-hand evidence in law. You’d be more credible if you used terms like “second-hand source” and “hearsay,” but you won’t use these terms because they imply there could possibly be something behind them.

What’s your alternative explanation? Who do you think wrote the gospels, and why?

I understand what begging the question is perfectly.

Begging the question is when you use the point you’re trying to prove as an argument to prove that very same point. Rather than proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it. It’s also called circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.


https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-begging-the-question/

Sigh. It would be convenient for you to toss out all four gospels and Paul as evidence for Jesus. That’s not how evidence works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not a double standard. They were contemporaneous accounts, not a century later. But if you want to argue that Socrates didn't exist, you are free to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

There is a lot of information and study about the various origins of the many writings that make up the Bible. You can take a class in it. Here is one that addresses the history of the New Testament. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-the-bible-the-making-of-the-new-testament-canon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

You don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “begging the question” or the role of second-hand evidence in law. You’d be more credible if you used terms like “second-hand source” and “hearsay,” but you won’t use these terms because they imply there could possibly be something behind them.

What’s your alternative explanation? Who do you think wrote the gospels, and why?

I understand what begging the question is perfectly.

Begging the question is when you use the point you’re trying to prove as an argument to prove that very same point. Rather than proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it. It’s also called circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.


https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-begging-the-question/

Sigh. It would be convenient for you to toss out all four gospels and Paul as evidence for Jesus. That’s not how evidence works.

So the bible is your evidence that the bible is true?

Actually, THAT'S not how evidence works, and is exactly begging the question. 100%. Textbook circular reasoning.

(also doesn't prove he didn't exist, and I am not making the claim he didn't, FYI)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Bart’s agenda? What sources do you use for this topic? Who would you recommend?

Bart’s agenda is to make money with provocative titles like “Jesus, Interrupted.” Some DCUMers clearly eat it up. For a more nuanced discussion, you could read Marcus Borg or Dominic Crossan, in fact Ehrman took a lot of their material without attribution.

Are we going to question facts based on ad hominem attacks and questions of "agendas"? Because you do not want to go there, trust me. Address the facts please and demand the opposition do the same.

Huh? You asked for and got two great recommendations. You don’t like them, apparently. That’s no reason to accuse other posters of avoiding facts.

Ehrman agrees Jesus existed-someone upthread linked to a video of him saying atheists look foolish when they say he didn’t exist. That’s the only thing that’s relevant to this thread. Nobody is going to let you derail the thread into a line-by-line of Ehrman’s corpus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not a double standard. They were contemporaneous accounts, not a century later. But if you want to argue that Socrates didn't exist, you are free to.

Plato wrote about Socrates decades after his death. That’s different, how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

No indisputable evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

There is a lot of information and study about the various origins of the many writings that make up the Bible. You can take a class in it. Here is one that addresses the history of the New Testament. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-the-bible-the-making-of-the-new-testament-canon

Then present the evidence from these writings about the historicity of Jesus. I believe those writings are all transcribed oral history from hundreds of years later.

Please also tell me if you apply the same standard to the Pagan gods, The Norse Gods, or the other Abrahamic messiahs, because there is more writing about them. I will expect a response to this part if you reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The only Bart Ehrman we need on this thread. Bart says Jesus existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

LOl at pp demanding others answer her questions. She even got timelines wrong—Paul and the gospels came 20-70 years after Jesus, not “hundreds of years later.”

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

There is a lot of information and study about the various origins of the many writings that make up the Bible. You can take a class in it. Here is one that addresses the history of the New Testament. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-the-bible-the-making-of-the-new-testament-canon

Then present the evidence from these writings about the historicity of Jesus. I believe those writings are all transcribed oral history from hundreds of years later.

Please also tell me if you apply the same standard to the Pagan gods, The Norse Gods, or the other Abrahamic messiahs, because there is more writing about them. I will expect a response to this part if you reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

You don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “begging the question” or the role of second-hand evidence in law. You’d be more credible if you used terms like “second-hand source” and “hearsay,” but you won’t use these terms because they imply there could possibly be something behind them.

What’s your alternative explanation? Who do you think wrote the gospels, and why?

I understand what begging the question is perfectly.

Begging the question is when you use the point you’re trying to prove as an argument to prove that very same point. Rather than proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it. It’s also called circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.


https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-begging-the-question/

Sigh. It would be convenient for you to toss out all four gospels and Paul as evidence for Jesus. That’s not how evidence works.

So the bible is your evidence that the bible is true?

Actually, THAT'S not how evidence works, and is exactly begging the question. 100%. Textbook circular reasoning.

(also doesn't prove he didn't exist, and I am not making the claim he didn't, FYI)

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not a double standard. They were contemporaneous accounts, not a century later. But if you want to argue that Socrates didn't exist, you are free to.

Plato wrote about Socrates decades after his death. That’s different, how?

Because he knew him and was close to him, maybe? Ya think? But also, I am fine if you say Socrates didn't' exist. Not arguing he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

There is a lot of information and study about the various origins of the many writings that make up the Bible. You can take a class in it. Here is one that addresses the history of the New Testament. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-the-bible-the-making-of-the-new-testament-canon

Then present the evidence from these writings about the historicity of Jesus. I believe those writings are all transcribed oral history from hundreds of years later.

Please also tell me if you apply the same standard to the Pagan gods, The Norse Gods, or the other Abrahamic messiahs, because there is more writing about them. I will expect a response to this part if you reply.

LOl at pp demanding others answer her questions. She even got timelines wrong—Paul and the gospels came 20-70 years after Jesus, not “hundreds of years later.”

Watch Bart or take the Great Courses class. Don’t demand others do your work for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Not a double standard. They were contemporaneous accounts, not a century later. But if you want to argue that Socrates didn't exist, you are free to.

Plato wrote about Socrates decades after his death. That’s different, how?

Because he knew him and was close to him, maybe? Ya think? But also, I am fine if you say Socrates didn't' exist. Not arguing he did.

I’m fine if you think Jesus doesn’t exist. I’ll judge you, though. And Ehrman will judge you too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only Bart Ehrman we need on this thread. Bart says Jesus existed.

You sure place a lot of value on his opinion. I don’t.

There is no indisputable evidence that Jesus existed.

Some indirect evidence makes it likely, but not definitive.