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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholars of scripture think he lived? Shocker.

Some historians may *believe* that he lived (and he certainly had a following), but they don’t *know* he existed.

The vast majority of scholars think he lived. You don’t look great when you repeat your talking points ad nauseum instead of addressing pp’s links.

None definitively say he existed.

But the prophet Joseph Smith definitely existed. Why don’t you follow his Book of Mormon?

How do you pick which prophet to believe? Which story do you like best?

This is tangential to the existence of Jesus, i.e. a strawman argument.

Nope. Just pointing out the inconsistent, flawed logic.

[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: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 quite the same thing. With the exception of Josephus, who never met Jesus and the accounts may well be Christian inserts, everyone who wrote about Jesus wanted people to believe that Jesus was God. Very different with Socrates. Plato was pro Socrates, Xenophon was neutral about Socrates, and Aristophanes thought that Socrates was an old fool.

Why are you ignoring pp’s post about the two Josephus quotes and how there’s widespread agreement one of them is authentic? Now you’re just being dishonest. Also, Josephus as a Jew hardly wanted people to believe in Jesus.

Josephus was indeed a Jew. So were all the other people who wrote about Jesus. Christianity was a Jewish sect in those days. It’s odd that there are no contemporaneous Roman sources.

Jesus was a jew too, as were all of his disciples

That’s the point. There are no contemporaneous Roman sources. The closest one, The Annals of Tacitus, did not come out until 116 A.D.

That's only 83 years later.

It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it.

Wow, you totally miss the point. There are a myriad of contemporaneous reports of what happened in 1939. But, oddly, no contemporaneous Roman sources regarding Jesus.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Romans wrote about Romans, their favorite topic.

Exactly. No one is saying he didn’t exist, just that there is an absence of evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholars of scripture think he lived? Shocker.

Some historians may *believe* that he lived (and he certainly had a following), but they don’t *know* he existed.

The vast majority of scholars think he lived. You don’t look great when you repeat your talking points ad nauseum instead of addressing pp’s links.

None definitively say he existed.

But the prophet Joseph Smith definitely existed. Why don’t you follow his Book of Mormon?

How do you pick which prophet to believe? Which story do you like best?

This is tangential to the existence of Jesus, i.e. a strawman argument.

Nope. Just pointing out the inconsistent, flawed logic.

Logic passed you by. Joseph Smith has no relevance to the historical existence of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

What would be indisputable evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholars of scripture think he lived? Shocker.

Some historians may *believe* that he lived (and he certainly had a following), but they don’t *know* he existed.

The vast majority of scholars think he lived. You don’t look great when you repeat your talking points ad nauseum instead of addressing pp’s links.

None definitively say he existed.

But the prophet Joseph Smith definitely existed. Why don’t you follow his Book of Mormon?

How do you pick which prophet to believe? Which story do you like best?

This is tangential to the existence of Jesus, i.e. a strawman argument.

Nope. Just pointing out the inconsistent, flawed logic.

DP. No it's a non-sequitur. The question under discussion is what evidence there is that Jesus is a historical person, not wether or not to become Christian. The Book of Mormon definitely is evidence that Joseph Smith existed, and everyone accepts it as such. There's no contradiction. It's not necessary evidence since he lived in the 19th century when most prominent people were much better attested and we have more documents, but if we lacked those, the Book of Mormon would be evidence, absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

An eyewitness account was written by John - the Book of John. He actually wrote in there that he was the eyewitness, and it was his personal account.

Again, you can’t use the Bible to validate the Bible.

And none of the gospels were eyewitness accounts. They were propaganda to sell Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

And there it is. With a wave of a hand you dismiss reknowned scholars with decades each of study of ancient languages and original sources. In favor of, what, sexual abusers like Carrier who have been called “problematic and unpersuasive,” and your own uninformed feelings.

Pat yourself on the back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

An eyewitness account was written by John - the Book of John. He actually wrote in there that he was the eyewitness, and it was his personal account.

Again, you can’t use the Bible to validate the Bible.

And none of the gospels were eyewitness accounts. They were propaganda to sell Christianity.

Nonsense. In a court of law people testify about stuff involving themselves all day, every day. Can we not use Cicero because he was writing about powerful people of his time? Excluding the Bible is not the handy rhetorical trick you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

Re-read the posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

And there it is. With a wave of a hand you dismiss reknowned scholars with decades each of study of ancient languages and original sources. In favor of, what, sexual abusers like Carrier who have been called “problematic and unpersuasive,” and your own uninformed feelings.

Pat yourself on the back?

I have no idea who Carrier is. Are you the poster who is obsessed with pedophiles and sexual abusers? Gross.

Again, if there were indisputable evidence there would be no question. But there isn’t. The biased “scholars” don’t have it. You don’t have it. It doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, just that we will never know for sure because we don’t have indisputable evidence. I’m ok with that uncertainty. Doesn’t seem like you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

Re-read the posts.

Time stamp of a single post that claimed he didn’t exist?

Right. You can’t provide one because no one claimed that.

Seems like you are quick to believe certain things without any evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

An eyewitness account was written by John - the Book of John. He actually wrote in there that he was the eyewitness, and it was his personal account.

Again, you can’t use the Bible to validate the Bible.

And none of the gospels were eyewitness accounts. They were propaganda to sell Christianity.

Nonsense. In a court of law people testify about stuff involving themselves all day, every day. Can we not use Cicero because he was writing about powerful people of his time? Excluding the Bible is not the handy rhetorical trick you think it is.

It was written by men with an agenda. You can believe what they say because you like the story but that doesn’t make it credible.