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: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.

^ you left out the part that said "The apostle John, son of Zebedee – traditionally the author was identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost universally rejected by modern scholars.[2][4]

It's interesting how the believers place so much credence in the weight of modern scholarship that is convinced of the historicity of Jeses (as am I btw); but wants to ignore the same weight of modern scholarship that rejects the book of John as having been written by the Apostle John.

[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

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.

^ you left out the part that said "The apostle John, son of Zebedee – traditionally the author was identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost universally rejected by modern scholars.[2][4]

It's interesting how the believers place so much credence in the weight of modern scholarship that is convinced of the historicity of Jeses (as am I btw); but wants to ignore the same weight of modern scholarship that rejects the book of John as having been written by the Apostle John.

sorry, Jesus. That was a typo.

[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?

Nobody is asking for “proof” of this.

Nobody is denying.

[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

That’s what the theology says. Not the history.

[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

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.

^ you left out the part that said "The apostle John, son of Zebedee – traditionally the author was identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost universally rejected by modern scholars.[2][4]

It's interesting how the believers place so much credence in the weight of modern scholarship that is convinced of the historicity of Jeses (as am I btw); but wants to ignore the same weight of modern scholarship that rejects the book of John as having been written by the Apostle John.

Yes, how many times have PPs posted Bart?

Guess they REALLY agree with his beliefs.

[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.

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

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

[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.

I’ll try to find it when I’m back on my computer. And it didn’t give those %s - it said “more likely than not” which means 50.99% to 99.99%. It struck me because historians don’t seem that binary in their beliefs about this time period because there are limited primary sources.

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: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.

^ you left out the part that said "The apostle John, son of Zebedee – traditionally the author was identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost universally rejected by modern scholars.[2][4]

It's interesting how the believers place so much credence in the weight of modern scholarship that is convinced of the historicity of Jeses (as am I btw); but wants to ignore the same weight of modern scholarship that rejects the book of John as having been written by the Apostle John.

DP. I don't place credence on the weight of modern scholarship simply because it's modern scholarship. I place credence in it when its convincing and not when it's not. The argument for the historicity of Jesus is especially strong because it's the consensus opinion of secular historians who have no reason to presuppose his existence (and possibly reasons to suggest that he didn't exist). An atheist is unlikely to find a Catholics belief that Jesus existed interesting, but if he believed that the Gospel of John was dated to 110 AD, you'd find that more persuasive. It's the same thing.

I also don't "ignore the weight of modern of scholarship" on the question of the dating of the fourth Gospel. I examine it and, as a person with undergraduate level training in ancient history and knowledge of the texts, find it uncompelling. It rests extensively on an assumption that John's high Christology must be a later development, which is a secular assumption without much reason to support it. Indeed, I'd say that if you're going to date Philippians, where Jesus is described as having "equality with God," to the 50s, I don't think "high Christology" is a remotely reasonable basis for assigning it a later date. The assumption that high vs low Christology is useful for dating anything also rests on assumption about how Christian belief developed that can't be proven. It also used to be popular to date John even later, as late as the second half of the second century, but we've got fragments (P52) of John that are now dated earlier than that (potentially as early as 125). I think the odds that John was composed in 110 and we happen to have a fragment from 125 are low.

I also generally find secular arguments around dating and composition tend to posit unproven entities (Q or a "Johnanine Community") and then build out more and more suppositions based on them, without often considering whether or not the original theory is right. Some of that is unavoidable (all scholarship builds on prior scholarship), but some just looks very much like creating more elaborate. epicycles.

It's possible they're right (and ultimately my interest in the dating of the Gospels is primarily academic, I don't find it particularly relevant from a faith standpoint), and it's possible that John is a late first century document from a community of people none of whom knew Jesus, but I don't assume they're right because they're scholars. Scholarship changes and scholarship gets it wrong, all the time. I do my best to look at why scholars believe what they believe and evaluated it on its merits.

[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.

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

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

Not important that he existed. Lots of people exist -- none are the son of god, born of a virgin, who ascended into heaven where he lives forever at the right hand of his father, God, and rules over heaven and earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

Not important that he existed. Lots of people exist -- none are the son of god, born of a virgin, who ascended into heaven where he lives forever at the right hand of his father, God, and rules over heaven and earth.

That’s theology, not history.

[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

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.

^ you left out the part that said "The apostle John, son of Zebedee – traditionally the author was identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost universally rejected by modern scholars.[2][4]

It's interesting how the believers place so much credence in the weight of modern scholarship that is convinced of the historicity of Jeses (as am I btw); but wants to ignore the same weight of modern scholarship that rejects the book of John as having been written by the Apostle John.

DP. I don't place credence on the weight of modern scholarship simply because it's modern scholarship. I place credence in it when its convincing and not when it's not. The argument for the historicity of Jesus is especially strong because it's the consensus opinion of secular historians who have no reason to presuppose his existence (and possibly reasons to suggest that he didn't exist). An atheist is unlikely to find a Catholics belief that Jesus existed interesting, but if he believed that the Gospel of John was dated to 110 AD, you'd find that more persuasive. It's the same thing.

I also don't "ignore the weight of modern of scholarship" on the question of the dating of the fourth Gospel. I examine it and, as a person with undergraduate level training in ancient history and knowledge of the texts, find it uncompelling. It rests extensively on an assumption that John's high Christology must be a later development, which is a secular assumption without much reason to support it. Indeed, I'd say that if you're going to date Philippians, where Jesus is described as having "equality with God," to the 50s, I don't think "high Christology" is a remotely reasonable basis for assigning it a later date. The assumption that high vs low Christology is useful for dating anything also rests on assumption about how Christian belief developed that can't be proven. It also used to be popular to date John even later, as late as the second half of the second century, but we've got fragments (P52) of John that are now dated earlier than that (potentially as early as 125). I think the odds that John was composed in 110 and we happen to have a fragment from 125 are low.

I also generally find secular arguments around dating and composition tend to posit unproven entities (Q or a "Johnanine Community") and then build out more and more suppositions based on them, without often considering whether or not the original theory is right. Some of that is unavoidable (all scholarship builds on prior scholarship), but some just looks very much like creating more elaborate. epicycles.

It's possible they're right (and ultimately my interest in the dating of the Gospels is primarily academic, I don't find it particularly relevant from a faith standpoint), and it's possible that John is a late first century document from a community of people none of whom knew Jesus, but I don't assume they're right because they're scholars. Scholarship changes and scholarship gets it wrong, all the time. I do my best to look at why scholars believe what they believe and evaluated it on its merits.

you and I really can't look at it on the merits though unless you're an expert, and there are few of those. All that exists of the book of John is a tiny fragment. And it was written in ancient Greek - a language John the Apostle could not have possibly known. As Bart Ehrman says, what we have of the gospels are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. You're not contending are you that the Book of John is a contemporaneous witness written source as someone above claimed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

Not important that he existed. Lots of people exist -- none are the son of god, born of a virgin, who ascended into heaven where he lives forever at the right hand of his father, God, and rules over heaven and earth.

That’s theology, not history.

That's the point. Who cares if a guy named Jesus actually existed in 1st century Judea? The story about him is not history; it's theology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

Not important that he existed. Lots of people exist -- none are the son of god, born of a virgin, who ascended into heaven where he lives forever at the right hand of his father, God, and rules over heaven and earth.

That’s theology, not history.

That's the point. Who cares if a guy named Jesus actually existed in 1st century Judea? The story about him is not history; it's theology.

Agree totally. It doesn’t even matter if there was an actual dude named Jesus or not. Believers have faith in the story of Jesus - the theology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

Not important that he existed. Lots of people exist -- none are the son of god, born of a virgin, who ascended into heaven where he lives forever at the right hand of his father, God, and rules over heaven and earth.

That’s theology, not history.

That's the point. Who cares if a guy named Jesus actually existed in 1st century Judea? The story about him is not history; it's theology.

Agree totally. It doesn’t even matter if there was an actual dude named Jesus or not. Believers have faith in the story of Jesus - the theology.

Actually, there are a lot of guys named Jesus back then -- a popular name at the time among Jews. And there were a lot of itinerant preachers, too, like there were in the early days of the American west.

Also, the particular story of Jesus of Nazareth is strikingly similar to earlier myths of dying/rising gods. Born of a virgin, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

And some of these gods were even born on Jesus' birthday, Dec 25. https://www.nairaland.com/4251378/list-gods-born-virgin-25th

A lot of this is well known, has been discussed before here on DCUM and doesn't interfere with people's belief in Christianity, which, as a religion, is built on faith. Anyone who would question their religion because of facts, does not have enough faith.

Faith can be built back up after learning disturbing facts about your religion. Some people just don't believe the facts when they hear them. Others, who may not have been very faithful in the first place, leave religion.

[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.

I’ll try to find it when I’m back on my computer. And it didn’t give those %s - it said “more likely than not” which means 50.99% to 99.99%. It struck me because historians don’t seem that binary in their beliefs about this time period because there are limited primary sources.

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

I’m the “more likely than not” poster and you’re correct. I never said 51-99%, that’s just fabricated. I even clarified my post to say that I meant 99.9%, with .1% uncertainty because, as you say, we can’t ever be 100% sure about anything.

Some of the atheists here are so dishonest.