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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

This all brings to mind the words of Jesus, when his disciples asked him why he spoke to people in parables:


This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

But blessed are your eyes because they see,
and your ears because they hear.

For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Well at least that is how some guy maybe remembered it and who told it to some other guy and then eventually some other guy who knew how to write and then it got translated multiple times over the centuries adding some flourishes. But sure “he” said that.

That is true for all religous texts, including the Quran
Isn’t it a pity that they didn’t catch this all on recording devices or surveilance camera

Yes, it’s just the nature of oral stories about some random guys 2000 years ago. And why it’s “very likely” but not definite.

Oral history, not “oral stories.” You can believe whatever you want, but 99.9+% of academia and scholarship worldwide and millions of people have their own beliefs, too. You are waging a war that makes you look, in the words of Bart Erhman, foolish.

Religious guy absolutely believes Jesus existed. Shocker.

As another poster said it’s “very likely”. Let’s go with that consensus.

The weird “anonymous posters on a message board determine the entire history of the world by their posts” rides again. Nobody needs your direction to believe what they believe. How self important are you? There’s centuries of evidence, scholarship, study, debate, and volumes of work about this topic. Nobody is waiting for dcum to decide what the truth is about this issue. Bart is an atheist, and doesn’t believe Jesus was divine. But he absolutely joins 99.9% of historians and scholars to know Jesus was a real man in history that walked the earth.

What they “believe”, not “know”.

Bart, who is far from unbiased, said there is “pretty good evidence“. Ok, pretty good. Very likely.

Scholars, academics, and historians who deny the historicity of Jesus Christ are labeled fringe and deniers. Just as climate deniers, holocaust deniers, etc, are.

As long as you understand that, you and whoever you are speaking for, are fringe and considered conspiracy theorists by 99.9% of the scholars and historians in the western world.

I haven’t denied his existence at all. On the contrary, I’ve said it’s “very likely”.

It’s not so binary. It’s ok to not know absolutely 100%. Isn’t that part of your faith?

Historicity of Jesus is not determined by faith. Many of the scholars, historians, and academics who know Jesus was a man who walked the earth are atheists and agnostics.

Handful of them. Not “many”.

^ and faith certainly plays a role if they are taking the gospels as truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

This all brings to mind the words of Jesus, when his disciples asked him why he spoke to people in parables:


This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

But blessed are your eyes because they see,
and your ears because they hear.

For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Well at least that is how some guy maybe remembered it and who told it to some other guy and then eventually some other guy who knew how to write and then it got translated multiple times over the centuries adding some flourishes. But sure “he” said that.

That is true for all religous texts, including the Quran
Isn’t it a pity that they didn’t catch this all on recording devices or surveilance camera

Yes, it’s just the nature of oral stories about some random guys 2000 years ago. And why it’s “very likely” but not definite.

Oral history, not “oral stories.” You can believe whatever you want, but 99.9+% of academia and scholarship worldwide and millions of people have their own beliefs, too. You are waging a war that makes you look, in the words of Bart Erhman, foolish.

Religious guy absolutely believes Jesus existed. Shocker.

As another poster said it’s “very likely”. Let’s go with that consensus.

The weird “anonymous posters on a message board determine the entire history of the world by their posts” rides again. Nobody needs your direction to believe what they believe. How self important are you? There’s centuries of evidence, scholarship, study, debate, and volumes of work about this topic. Nobody is waiting for dcum to decide what the truth is about this issue. Bart is an atheist, and doesn’t believe Jesus was divine. But he absolutely joins 99.9% of historians and scholars to know Jesus was a real man in history that walked the earth.

What they “believe”, not “know”.

Bart, who is far from unbiased, said there is “pretty good evidence“. Ok, pretty good. Very likely.

Scholars, academics, and historians who deny the historicity of Jesus Christ are labeled fringe and deniers. Just as climate deniers, holocaust deniers, etc, are.

As long as you understand that, you and whoever you are speaking for, are fringe and considered conspiracy theorists by 99.9% of the scholars and historians in the western world.

I haven’t denied his existence at all. On the contrary, I’ve said it’s “very likely”.

It’s not so binary. It’s ok to not know absolutely 100%. Isn’t that part of your faith?

Historicity of Jesus is not determined by faith. Many of the scholars, historians, and academics who know Jesus was a man who walked the earth are atheists and agnostics.

Handful of them. Not “many”.

99.9% of them.

3 deny this and one of the 3 is a sexual abuser.

99.9% of atheists and agnostics? Please provide this list of the “many” atheist/agnostic scholars and historians.

It’s kinda pervy to fixate on a sexual abuser. Might want to reflect on why you keep focusing on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The case against Jesus as historical
Most of those who believe Jesus wasn’t historical are not reputable scholars. (A reputable scholar is generally regarded as one with relevant qualifications who is employed by a reputable organisation and is actively working and publishing in the subject.) The only three qualified scholars who believe Jesus didn’t exist as a historical person are:

Robert Price is a qualified Bible scholar but is no longer working at an accredited academic institution.

Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history but has never held an academic position.

Thomas Brodie is a Catholic priest and theologian who has retired.

These are the 3 that deny Jesus was a historical figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

I don’t blindly believe anything in life. I have the ability to read and research and think. Why do you think everyone is blindly accepting and ignorant? You think every historian and scholar in the western world is blind, has the same wrong agenda, etc? Get over yourself. Where is your evidence they are all wrong? What are your qualifications to judge everyone wrong but you?

Many people just believe what they what to believe. Or, for most Christians, just what they are told to believe. How many actually go examine “evidence”? Not many.

What % of these people also believe that he rose from the dead?

At most - for people who aren’t blinded by faith - they believe it’s “very likely” he existed. That’s just how it is without unbiased, contemporaneous evidence.

People don’t like uncertainty. That part of why we have religion in the first place - to explain the unknown.

None of your comment applies to 99.9% of the scholars, historians, and academics in the entire western world.

Where do you pull the 99.9%?

Why just the western world?

He’s a religious studies guy. Not an unbiased historian.

Why just the western world? Does the evidence hold up to unbiased scrutiny?

There's no such thing as an "unbiased historian," and it's very hard to take seriously anyone who thinks there is.

Someone who has been extremely immersed in religion will of course have biases.

Much more so than a historian without that background.

Can’t really get more immersed than him.

No, historians with a religious background will have *different* biases than one without them. Historians without a strong background in religion very often get religious belief very wrong, because their own biases get in the way. This is far from universal, and it's more of a problem with pop history than academic historians, but it is the reality of it. You don't even have to get outside this thread to see it. The whole "people believe because they're told to believe" thing is BS for huge numbers of believers (all of all faiths), but it makes sense to atheists so it gets repeated ad nauseam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now all history is a lie, according to dcum.

Not a lie. Just biased interpretations written by men with an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The case against Jesus as historical
Most of those who believe Jesus wasn’t historical are not reputable scholars. (A reputable scholar is generally regarded as one with relevant qualifications who is employed by a reputable organisation and is actively working and publishing in the subject.) The only three qualified scholars who believe Jesus didn’t exist as a historical person are:

Robert Price is a qualified Bible scholar but is no longer working at an accredited academic institution.

Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history but has never held an academic position.

Thomas Brodie is a Catholic priest and theologian who has retired.

These are the 3 that deny Jesus was a historical figure.

Who are all of the many atheists and agnostics who do 100% believe that Jesus existed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

I don’t blindly believe anything in life. I have the ability to read and research and think. Why do you think everyone is blindly accepting and ignorant? You think every historian and scholar in the western world is blind, has the same wrong agenda, etc? Get over yourself. Where is your evidence they are all wrong? What are your qualifications to judge everyone wrong but you?

Many people just believe what they what to believe. Or, for most Christians, just what they are told to believe. How many actually go examine “evidence”? Not many.

What % of these people also believe that he rose from the dead?

At most - for people who aren’t blinded by faith - they believe it’s “very likely” he existed. That’s just how it is without unbiased, contemporaneous evidence.

People don’t like uncertainty. That part of why we have religion in the first place - to explain the unknown.

None of your comment applies to 99.9% of the scholars, historians, and academics in the entire western world.

Where do you pull the 99.9%?

Why just the western world?

He’s a religious studies guy. Not an unbiased historian.

Why just the western world? Does the evidence hold up to unbiased scrutiny?

There's no such thing as an "unbiased historian," and it's very hard to take seriously anyone who thinks there is.

Someone who has been extremely immersed in religion will of course have biases.

Much more so than a historian without that background.

Can’t really get more immersed than him.

No, historians with a religious background will have *different* biases than one without them. Historians without a strong background in religion very often get religious belief very wrong, because their own biases get in the way. This is far from universal, and it's more of a problem with pop history than academic historians, but it is the reality of it. You don't even have to get outside this thread to see it. The whole "people believe because they're told to believe" thing is BS for huge numbers of believers (all of all faiths), but it makes sense to atheists so it gets repeated ad nauseam.

What % of believers do you think actually research the historicity of Jesus and look at sources?

[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:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

I don’t blindly believe anything in life. I have the ability to read and research and think. Why do you think everyone is blindly accepting and ignorant? You think every historian and scholar in the western world is blind, has the same wrong agenda, etc? Get over yourself. Where is your evidence they are all wrong? What are your qualifications to judge everyone wrong but you?

Many people just believe what they what to believe. Or, for most Christians, just what they are told to believe. How many actually go examine “evidence”? Not many.

What % of these people also believe that he rose from the dead?

At most - for people who aren’t blinded by faith - they believe it’s “very likely” he existed. That’s just how it is without unbiased, contemporaneous evidence.

People don’t like uncertainty. That part of why we have religion in the first place - to explain the unknown.

None of your comment applies to 99.9% of the scholars, historians, and academics in the entire western world.

Where do you pull the 99.9%?

Why just the western world?

He’s a religious studies guy. Not an unbiased historian.

Why just the western world? Does the evidence hold up to unbiased scrutiny?

There's no such thing as an "unbiased historian," and it's very hard to take seriously anyone who thinks there is.

Someone who has been extremely immersed in religion will of course have biases.

Much more so than a historian without that background.

Can’t really get more immersed than him.

No, historians with a religious background will have *different* biases than one without them. Historians without a strong background in religion very often get religious belief very wrong, because their own biases get in the way. This is far from universal, and it's more of a problem with pop history than academic historians, but it is the reality of it. You don't even have to get outside this thread to see it. The whole "people believe because they're told to believe" thing is BS for huge numbers of believers (all of all faiths), but it makes sense to atheists so it gets repeated ad nauseam.

What % of believers do you think actually research the historicity of Jesus and look at sources?

^ And how would an non-religious bias interfere with research of historicity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the "contemporaneous witness written account"? Still waiting to hear on this one.

+1

[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:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

I don’t blindly believe anything in life. I have the ability to read and research and think. Why do you think everyone is blindly accepting and ignorant? You think every historian and scholar in the western world is blind, has the same wrong agenda, etc? Get over yourself. Where is your evidence they are all wrong? What are your qualifications to judge everyone wrong but you?

Many people just believe what they what to believe. Or, for most Christians, just what they are told to believe. How many actually go examine “evidence”? Not many.

What % of these people also believe that he rose from the dead?

At most - for people who aren’t blinded by faith - they believe it’s “very likely” he existed. That’s just how it is without unbiased, contemporaneous evidence.

People don’t like uncertainty. That part of why we have religion in the first place - to explain the unknown.

None of your comment applies to 99.9% of the scholars, historians, and academics in the entire western world.

Where do you pull the 99.9%?

Why just the western world?

He’s a religious studies guy. Not an unbiased historian.

Why just the western world? Does the evidence hold up to unbiased scrutiny?

There's no such thing as an "unbiased historian," and it's very hard to take seriously anyone who thinks there is.

So all of recorded history is untrue?

Having a bias doesn't mean you're lying. That's an incredibly weird leap to make.

Seems like some PPs think in black or white and don’t realize the world is grey.

Believe vs deny
Truth vs lie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the "contemporaneous witness written account"? Still waiting to hear on this one.

+1

Anyone? Anyone?

The whole reason this is even an issue for some people is precisely because there are NO contemporary witness written accounts.

I's love to heare what they are.

[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:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

I don’t blindly believe anything in life. I have the ability to read and research and think. Why do you think everyone is blindly accepting and ignorant? You think every historian and scholar in the western world is blind, has the same wrong agenda, etc? Get over yourself. Where is your evidence they are all wrong? What are your qualifications to judge everyone wrong but you?

Many people just believe what they what to believe. Or, for most Christians, just what they are told to believe. How many actually go examine “evidence”? Not many.

What % of these people also believe that he rose from the dead?

At most - for people who aren’t blinded by faith - they believe it’s “very likely” he existed. That’s just how it is without unbiased, contemporaneous evidence.

People don’t like uncertainty. That part of why we have religion in the first place - to explain the unknown.

None of your comment applies to 99.9% of the scholars, historians, and academics in the entire western world.

Where do you pull the 99.9%?

Why just the western world?

He’s a religious studies guy. Not an unbiased historian.

Why just the western world? Does the evidence hold up to unbiased scrutiny?

There's no such thing as an "unbiased historian," and it's very hard to take seriously anyone who thinks there is.

Someone who has been extremely immersed in religion will of course have biases.

Much more so than a historian without that background.

Can’t really get more immersed than him.

No, historians with a religious background will have *different* biases than one without them. Historians without a strong background in religion very often get religious belief very wrong, because their own biases get in the way. This is far from universal, and it's more of a problem with pop history than academic historians, but it is the reality of it. You don't even have to get outside this thread to see it. The whole "people believe because they're told to believe" thing is BS for huge numbers of believers (all of all faiths), but it makes sense to atheists so it gets repeated ad nauseam.

What % of believers do you think actually research the historicity of Jesus and look at sources?

^ And how would an non-religious bias interfere with research of historicity?

Any bias interfere with research on any topic. Both a non-biased believer or a non-biased non-believer could conduct honest research if they simply followed the facts.

Many believers don't bother to do research -- not because they are biased, but because their faith is stronger than any information they might find. Facts could not change their faith. Nor could facts make their faith stronger. For a believer, faith is different from and stronger than facts.-- something non-believers may have difficulty understanding.

[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:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

I don’t blindly believe anything in life. I have the ability to read and research and think. Why do you think everyone is blindly accepting and ignorant? You think every historian and scholar in the western world is blind, has the same wrong agenda, etc? Get over yourself. Where is your evidence they are all wrong? What are your qualifications to judge everyone wrong but you?

Many people just believe what they what to believe. Or, for most Christians, just what they are told to believe. How many actually go examine “evidence”? Not many.

What % of these people also believe that he rose from the dead?

At most - for people who aren’t blinded by faith - they believe it’s “very likely” he existed. That’s just how it is without unbiased, contemporaneous evidence.

People don’t like uncertainty. That part of why we have religion in the first place - to explain the unknown.

None of your comment applies to 99.9% of the scholars, historians, and academics in the entire western world.

Where do you pull the 99.9%?

Why just the western world?

He’s a religious studies guy. Not an unbiased historian.

Why just the western world? Does the evidence hold up to unbiased scrutiny?

There's no such thing as an "unbiased historian," and it's very hard to take seriously anyone who thinks there is.

Someone who has been extremely immersed in religion will of course have biases.

Much more so than a historian without that background.

Can’t really get more immersed than him.

No, historians with a religious background will have *different* biases than one without them. Historians without a strong background in religion very often get religious belief very wrong, because their own biases get in the way. This is far from universal, and it's more of a problem with pop history than academic historians, but it is the reality of it. You don't even have to get outside this thread to see it. The whole "people believe because they're told to believe" thing is BS for huge numbers of believers (all of all faiths), but it makes sense to atheists so it gets repeated ad nauseam.

What % of believers do you think actually research the historicity of Jesus and look at sources?

^ And how would an non-religious bias interfere with research of historicity?

Any bias interfere with research on any topic. Both a non-biased believer or a non-biased non-believer could conduct honest research if they simply followed the facts.

Many believers don't bother to do research -- not because they are biased, but because their faith is stronger than any information they might find. Facts could not change their faith. Nor could facts make their faith stronger. For a believer, faith is different from and stronger than facts.-- something non-believers may have difficulty understanding.

I think that faith might explain why so many take the gospel as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

Where is your evidence? Of what you believe?

My beliefs are based on a lack of unbiased, contemporaneous evidence. Without that, as PP said, most of us think it’s “very likely” he existed.

I’m the pp who said “very likely.” You keep quoting me as if I meant something like 60% likelihood. That’s not at all what I meant. To prevent you from continuing to misuse my post, I’m clarifying it to “extremely likely,” i.e. close to 100%.

As a side note, it’s weird that you’ve glommed onto a single post from an anonymous person on the interwebs (my post) as your “truth.” At the same time, you dismiss the hundreds of real scholars who have studied ancient languages and sources, including skeptics like Ehrman. I’ve read some of those scholars (unlike you), I respect them, and that’s why my “very” was intended to convey near-100% certainty. Please stop misusing my post.

I’ve been saying it’s very likely long before your post.

Your post and the ones following felt like consensus on this thread. That’s why I keep referring to it.

Yes, we don’t know 100%. Totally agree.

Wrong. Again you’re distorting what I and others have said. Your language around “we don’t know 100%” is very different from the language I and others are using, that “we know with 99.9% certainty.” I do statistics, among other things, for a living. Go back and review statistics. Shade in some squares on graph paper if you need to.

Further, most of us including me are giving you that 0.1% uncertainty only because nothing in life is certain, and (unlike you) we’re honest like that. The academic research is clear, though.

Obviously your “we don’t know 100%” language keeps the thread alive and satisfies some deep need you have to troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

Where is your evidence? Of what you believe?

My beliefs are based on a lack of unbiased, contemporaneous evidence. Without that, as PP said, most of us think it’s “very likely” he existed.

I’m the pp who said “very likely.” You keep quoting me as if I meant something like 60% likelihood. That’s not at all what I meant. To prevent you from continuing to misuse my post, I’m clarifying it to “extremely likely,” i.e. close to 100%.

As a side note, it’s weird that you’ve glommed onto a single post from an anonymous person on the interwebs (my post) as your “truth.” At the same time, you dismiss the hundreds of real scholars who have studied ancient languages and sources, including skeptics like Ehrman. I’ve read some of those scholars (unlike you), I respect them, and that’s why my “very” was intended to convey near-100% certainty. Please stop misusing my post.

I’ve been saying it’s very likely long before your post.

Your post and the ones following felt like consensus on this thread. That’s why I keep referring to it.

Yes, we don’t know 100%. Totally agree.

Wrong. Again you’re distorting what I and others have said. Your language around “we don’t know 100%” is very different from the language I and others are using, that “we know with 99.9% certainty.” I do statistics, among other things, for a living. Go back and review statistics. Shade in some squares on graph paper if you need to.

Further, most of us including me are giving you that 0.1% uncertainty only because nothing in life is certain, and (unlike you) we’re honest like that. The academic research is clear, though.

Obviously your “we don’t know 100%” language keeps the thread alive and satisfies some deep need you have to troll.

I'm good with statistics, thanks. And "99.9%" is "not 100%".

So when I say there is some uncertainty I'm being dishonest, but when you say there is some uncertainty you are being honest? Explain that.

Why shouldn't I respond to your posts?