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

[Anonymous]

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

Sorry, but I'm calling B.S. on this. Either name it or it doesn't exist.

[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.

dp. pp just needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

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”.

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.

dp. pp just needs to stop.

The “it’s very likely he existed but not 100% certain” PP bumped the thread.

[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?

Relevance to the question?

[Anonymous]

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”.

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?

Since you enjoy weasel wording, there is very little uncertainty, not some.

[Anonymous]

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”.

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?

Since you enjoy weasel wording, there is very little uncertainty, not some.

+1. Almost no uncertainty would work too. Some people even say zero uncertainty. The poster who keeps claiming “some uncertainty” is the same thing is either bad with English, dishonest, or trolling.

[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?

Relevance to the question?

Because if they haven’t researched for themselves then they are just “believing what they're told to believe“.

[Anonymous]

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”.

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?

Since you enjoy weasel wording, there is very little uncertainty, not some.

Again. Explain how when I say there is X uncertainty I'm being “dishonest”, but when you say there is X uncertainty you are being “honest”?

X<100%

What’s your logic there?

[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”.

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?

Since you enjoy weasel wording, there is very little uncertainty, not some.

+1. Almost no uncertainty would work too. Some people even say zero uncertainty. The poster who keeps claiming “some uncertainty” is the same thing is either bad with English, dishonest, or trolling.

“Some” is accurate. Maybe not precise, but it’s accurate.

some
/səm/

1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"

[Anonymous]

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

Sorry, but I'm calling B.S. on this. Either name it or it doesn't exist.

Crickets.

Because it doesn’t exist. Part of why we have uncertainty.

[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?

Relevance to the question?

Because if they haven’t researched for themselves then they are just “believing what they're told to believe“.

I'm the PP who originally got asked what percentage off believers research the historical Jesus and I haven't really been motivated to answer the question because I don't believe you'll listen to my answer, but in my experience, it's virtually all of them.

[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”.

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?

Since you enjoy weasel wording, there is very little uncertainty, not some.

Again. Explain how when I say there is X uncertainty I'm being “dishonest”, but when you say there is X uncertainty you are being “honest”?

X<100%

What’s your logic there?

Oops. Meant to say X certainty.

For uncertainty: X>0%

[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: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?

Relevance to the question?

Because if they haven’t researched for themselves then they are just “believing what they're told to believe“.

I'm the PP who originally got asked what percentage off believers research the historical Jesus and I haven't really been motivated to answer the question because I don't believe you'll listen to my answer, but in my experience, it's virtually all of them.

How would you even know the % of atheist/agnostic scholars and historians who believe 100% (zero uncertainty) in historical Jesus vs not?

I call BS.

[Anonymous]

^ sorry. Just reread and saw you were talking about general believers, not researchers, etc.

The vast majority definitely do not research the historicity of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

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

Sorry, but I'm calling B.S. on this. Either name it or it doesn't exist.

The Book of John, written by Jesus's disciple John.