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: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?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

You could think it’s possible that he robbed the bank but you don’t know for sure. Would I take the word of a criminal who may have ulterior motives?

Anyway, none of the gospels were eyewitness reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah, I’m just not interested in going through 43 pages to find a cite for the inane smiley-face troll.

Right. No one made that claim. Not that you base your opinions on facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, tell us. Who and why would “men with an agenda” completely fabricate the gospels and Paul’s letters around a person they decided to call Jesus who never actually existed?

You need a credible alternative source for the gospels.

Why do we need a “credible” alternative source, but can’t question credibility of the gospels themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

You could think it’s possible that he robbed the bank but you don’t know for sure. Would I take the word of a criminal who may have ulterior motives?

Anyway, none of the gospels were eyewitness reports.

All phenomenon are observed by our senses which can be fooled. Therefore, no evidence is certain. You should have learned this in basic philosophy and moved past pendanticism. No evidence can satisfy your capricious and arbitrary requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, tell us. Who and why would “men with an agenda” completely fabricate the gospels and Paul’s letters around a person they decided to call Jesus who never actually existed?

You need a credible alternative source for the gospels.

Why do we need a “credible” alternative source, but can’t question credibility of the gospels themselves?

The oldest book in the NT is Paul's I Thesalonian's dated probably in early 50's. c.e. That's just 20 years (roughly) after Jesus died. If you read it you would have to believe he was engineering a colossal conspiracy to fabricate a person named Jesus who he repeatedly calls "Lord."

Granted, the gospel writers likely didn't know Jesus (maybe they knew Peter or Paul), and no way they could have known the circumstances of Jesus's birth. But Paul's letters, to me, are pretty convincing. And he was writing to churches that had been established when the Jewish Christians were expelled or fled Jerusalem after Jesus (reportedly) died. So there again, there were believers during this time. It can't just have been a mass delusion. I really think we can put this question to rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, tell us. Who and why would “men with an agenda” completely fabricate the gospels and Paul’s letters around a person they decided to call Jesus who never actually existed?

You need a credible alternative source for the gospels.

Why do we need a “credible” alternative source, but can’t question credibility of the gospels themselves?

The oldest book in the NT is Paul's I Thesalonian's dated probably in early 50's. c.e. That's just 20 years (roughly) after Jesus died. If you read it you would have to believe he was engineering a colossal conspiracy to fabricate a person named Jesus who he repeatedly calls "Lord."

Granted, the gospel writers likely didn't know Jesus (maybe they knew Peter or Paul), and no way they could have known the circumstances of Jesus's birth. But Paul's letters, to me, are pretty convincing. And he was writing to churches that had been established when the Jewish Christians were expelled or fled Jerusalem after Jesus (reportedly) died. So there again, there were believers during this time. It can't just have been a mass delusion. I really think we can put this question to rest.

How many followers actually met him? Or just heard the story from a compelling storyteller.

People believe what they want to believe.

Anyway, sounds like we all agree that “it’s very probable that he did”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

You could think it’s possible that he robbed the bank but you don’t know for sure. Would I take the word of a criminal who may have ulterior motives?

Anyway, none of the gospels were eyewitness reports.

All phenomenon are observed by our senses which can be fooled. Therefore, no evidence is certain. You should have learned this in basic philosophy and moved past pendanticism. No evidence can satisfy your capricious and arbitrary requirements.

Seeking an independent, contemporaneous report is hardly “capricious” or “arbitrary”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

You could think it’s possible that he robbed the bank but you don’t know for sure. Would I take the word of a criminal who may have ulterior motives?

Anyway, none of the gospels were eyewitness reports.

All phenomenon are observed by our senses which can be fooled. Therefore, no evidence is certain. You should have learned this in basic philosophy and moved past pendanticism. No evidence can satisfy your capricious and arbitrary requirements.

Seeking an independent, contemporaneous report is hardly “capricious” or “arbitrary”.

It’s holding Jesus to a different standard than hold most other people in antiquity or even the Middle Ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Many people who knew Jesus were still around when Mark, Paul and others wrote about Jesus. John claimed to be an eye witness to Jesus’ life and teaching.

You keep trying to exclude the gospels on various specious grounds that no court would entertain. If your brother tells me 20 years after the fact that you robbed a bank and he helped launder the money, should I not take it seriously?

You could think it’s possible that he robbed the bank but you don’t know for sure. Would I take the word of a criminal who may have ulterior motives?

Anyway, none of the gospels were eyewitness reports.

All phenomenon are observed by our senses which can be fooled. Therefore, no evidence is certain. You should have learned this in basic philosophy and moved past pendanticism. No evidence can satisfy your capricious and arbitrary requirements.

Seeking an independent, contemporaneous report is hardly “capricious” or “arbitrary”.

It’s holding Jesus to a different standard than hold most other people in antiquity or even the Middle Ages.

I haven’t commented on the historicity of anytime else from antiquities/Middle Ages.

And I’m hardly the first person to recognize that we don’t have an independent, contemporaneous report. Many books have been written arguing many different perspectives about the historicity of Jesus and the credibility of the gospels.

As PP said, it’s “very probable” but not definitive.

[Anonymous]

Jesus existence is not a question, and I’d like to see the credentials and evidence of every person here doubting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus existence is not a question, and I’d like to see the credentials and evidence of every person here doubting it.

This. The scholars, even hostile scholars like Ehrman, agree that Jesus’ existence is not in any doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus existence is not a question, and I’d like to see the credentials and evidence of every person here doubting it.

people are allowed to doubt whomever they want to. For instance, I doubt that you have any standing to doubt anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus existence is not a question, and I’d like to see the credentials and evidence of every person here doubting it.

people are allowed to doubt whomever they want to. For instance, I doubt that you have any standing to doubt anyone.

People are allowed to be flat earthers or believe that 297 years in the early middle ages didn't really happen. People believe both those things.

The rest of us are allowed to call those people cranks and Jesus mythicists are pretty close to those groups.

[Anonymous]

The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.