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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 256-257

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Robert M. Price, who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 page 61

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".


Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.”

So almost all of these guys are theologists. Totally immersed in Christianity, whether they currently believe in the divinity or not.

Grant is a classist but not sure if “recent years” in 1977 is applicable here.

My question was: where are the “many” atheist/agnostic historians who believe 100% in historical Jesus. 100% is a tough standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 256-257

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Robert M. Price, who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 page 61

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".


Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.”

So almost all of these guys are theologists. Totally immersed in Christianity, whether they currently believe in the divinity or not.

Grant is a classist but not sure if “recent years” in 1977 is applicable here.

My question was: where are the “many” atheist/agnostic historians who believe 100% in historical Jesus. 100% is a tough standard.

Bart D. Ehrman: He subsequently left evangelicalism and returned to the Episcopal Church, where he remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][6]

[Anonymous]

I don’t personally know a single atheist who would deny that Jesus existed,” said Louise Antony, professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “It would be really unfair to suggest that it’s part of being an atheist to deny the existence of Jesus as a historical person.”

https://www.sj-r.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2012/06/02/did-jesus-exist-this-agnostic/41740312007/

Louise Antony is an atheist professor of philosophy.

https://www.umass.edu/philosophy/member/louise-antony

[Anonymous]

Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

[Anonymous]

What difference does it make if a charismatic jewish guy named Jesus existed, preached and died a loooong time ago? Paul is the true founder of what we call “Christianity” now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

Thus sayeth the anonymous internet poster who demands link proof from other anonymous posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

They are also nonexistent on this thread. LOL.

How many nonbiased historians are 100% certain of anything from this time period?

[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>0%

What’s your logic there?

No logical explanation, huh? Shall we write that off as hypocritical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

Thus sayeth the anonymous internet poster who demands link proof from other anonymous posters.

No competent scholar or academic in good standing with a teaching job or that’s publishing (both usually) in denies the historical certainty of Christ.

How is that not specific enough for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

Thus sayeth the anonymous internet poster who demands link proof from other anonymous posters.

No competent scholar or academic in good standing with a teaching job or that’s publishing (both usually) in denies the historical certainty of Christ.

How is that not specific enough for you?

That's a start. would be better if it included a link and the time in the Youtube when Erhman makes such a statement as the above. It's not in quotes, suggesting it is not verbatim Erhman.

[Anonymous]

Great to see such support of the academics of Bart Ehrman. I support that too.

Let's remember that a large part of Bart's work has been demonstrating with textual criticism how the bible has massive translation and transcription errors and changes, rendering them highly unreliable.

The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to de-emphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus

[Anonymous]

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

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.

Theology, not history

Eye
witness
account
written
by
him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

Denying Jesus ever existed, that his existence is a hoax, is a fringe belief - a conspiracy theory. Like there was a cult that began while he was alive, but it was a hoax because he never was alive. How ridiculous. Do you people believe Mohammed never existed too? LOL

[Anonymous]

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

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.

Theology, not history

Eye
witness
account
written
by
him

John was written long after Jesus' time on Earth:

"The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html

also in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
"John reached its final form around AD 90–110,[7] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.[8] Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[9][10] It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[11][12] and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[13]"

Of course, it's a matter of faith that John was written by Jesus' diciple, John. And when it comes to religious faith, facts are not relevant.