Anonymous wrote:https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

Here’s Bart:

Jesus existed. In yesterday’s post, I began to show how Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence.

But how can you make a convincing case [that someone made up Jesus] if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.

Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s [by itself] more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit.

(Still Bart talking) Short story: we are not talking about a Bart Ehrman Jesus figure invented in the year 60. There was widespread information about Jesus from the years after his death. Otherwise, you can’t explain all the literary evidence (dozens of independent sources), some of it based on Aramaic traditions of Jesus’ homeland.

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:Even Bart Ehrman says: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed."
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

Ehrman also says this: But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.

One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.

Prove it.

"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"

"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"

Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.

Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.

In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"?

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Did you notice the time stamps?

More bs. Nobody cares if the time stamps are several decades old. Independent scholarship is independent scholarship.

I meant the timestamps of the posts. They were posted at the same time.

Somebody uploaded posts at the same time? Who cares?

You still lost the argument about the vast scholarly concensus that Jesus existed.

I fully agree that thousands of theologists believe he existed. If you had evidence of thousands of unbiased, independent "scholars" then you might have something.

Anyway, no one can say with 100% certainty because we don't have decent sources. Contemporary, first-hand, unbiased sources.

You keep trying to redefine “scholars” as being somehow exclusively “theologians.” We see you.

Paul knowing Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciple Peter, and writing about them, is pretty darn decent. As Ehrman says, James would have told Paul if he didn’t have a brother called Jesus.

Plus Ehrman and others cite 30 other sources and a lot of linguistic evidence for Jesus’ existence.

But hey, if you want to join the extreme fringe of “foolish” deniers and die on the hill of not having CNN cameras trained on Jesus, then you do you. Maybe make yourself a tinfoil hat too?

“probably pretty good evidence” - so convincing.

He was using the gospels as a source.

You keep fixating on this single Ehrman quote and ignoring these:

Ehrman’s very first sentence in this blog is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset...ight-that-jesus-never-existed/

What are you afraid of? How’s that tinfoil hat coming along? Or are you just trolling?

Thousands of theologists believe he existed? Shocker!

You’re not winning any arguments with transparent lies about “scholars” being the same thing as “theologians.”

They are theologists by training. Not historians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's settled then:

- It is likely a man named Jesus existed
- There is zero evidence of his divinity

Now the thread is genuinely over, unless someone - explicitly and with evidence - disputes the above.

A man named Jesus existed. It's not likely. It's certain until someone can find contradictory evidence to prove otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's settled then:

- It is likely a man named Jesus existed
- There is zero evidence of his divinity

Now the thread is genuinely over, unless someone - explicitly and with evidence - disputes the above.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Not ”it is likely.” That goes against the vast consensus among scholars (historians and theologians) that Jesus existed. As the sainted Bart says, only 1-2 scholars out of 2,000-3,000 maintain that Jesus didn’t exist. How’s your tinfoil hat coming along?

It’s adorable you think that a handful of DCUM randos can settle the issue of Jesus’ historicity in a way that flies in the face of the work of thousands of actual scholars.

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:Even Bart Ehrman says: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed."
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

Ehrman also says this: But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.

One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.

"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"

"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"

Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.

Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.

In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"?

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Did you notice the time stamps?

More bs. Nobody cares if the time stamps are several decades old. Independent scholarship is independent scholarship.

I meant the timestamps of the posts. They were posted at the same time.

Somebody uploaded posts at the same time? Who cares?

You still lost the argument about the vast scholarly concensus that Jesus existed.

I fully agree that thousands of theologists believe he existed. If you had evidence of thousands of unbiased, independent "scholars" then you might have something.

Anyway, no one can say with 100% certainty because we don't have decent sources. Contemporary, first-hand, unbiased sources.

You keep trying to redefine “scholars” as being somehow exclusively “theologians.” We see you.

Paul knowing Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciple Peter, and writing about them, is pretty darn decent. As Ehrman says, James would have told Paul if he didn’t have a brother called Jesus.

Plus Ehrman and others cite 30 other sources and a lot of linguistic evidence for Jesus’ existence.

But hey, if you want to join the extreme fringe of “foolish” deniers and die on the hill of not having CNN cameras trained on Jesus, then you do you. Maybe make yourself a tinfoil hat too?

“probably pretty good evidence” - so convincing.

He was using the gospels as a source.

You keep fixating on this single Ehrman quote and ignoring these:

Ehrman’s very first sentence in this blog is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset...ight-that-jesus-never-existed/

What are you afraid of? How’s that tinfoil hat coming along? Or are you just trolling?

Thousands of theologists believe he existed? Shocker!

You’re not winning any arguments with transparent lies about “scholars” being the same thing as “theologians.”

Anonymous wrote:So it's settled then:

- It is likely a man named Jesus existed
- There is zero evidence of his divinity

Now the thread is genuinely over, unless someone - explicitly and with evidence - disputes the above.

Anonymous wrote:https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

Here’s Bart:

Jesus existed. In yesterday’s post, I began to show how Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence.

But how can you make a convincing case [that someone made up Jesus] if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.

Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s [by itself] more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit.

(Still Bart talking) Short story: we are not talking about a Bart Ehrman Jesus figure invented in the year 60. There was widespread information about Jesus from the years after his death. Otherwise, you can’t explain all the literary evidence (dozens of independent sources), some of it based on Aramaic traditions of Jesus’ homeland.

Anonymous wrote:So it's settled then:

- It is likely a man named Jesus existed
- There is zero evidence of his divinity

Now the thread is genuinely over, unless someone - explicitly and with evidence - disputes the above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is getting boring. Going back to OP's initial post:

Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

Seems to be asking more about the origin of the theology? Like, do we:
a. think Jesus was a real guy who existed and was divine?
b. think Jesus was a real guy, but Paul and the other early Christians made up stories about his miracles and divinity?
c. think Jesus was entirely fictional?

I think it's most likely that he was a real guy.

Not sure who made up the stories about the supernatural aspects.

All the supernatural elements already existed in other contemporaneous mythologies and religions.

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:Even Bart Ehrman says: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed."
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

Ehrman also says this: But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.

One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist.

"Paul is probably pretty good evidence"

"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"

Bumping my response:
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.

Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.

In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say?

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"?

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time.

Did you notice the time stamps?

More bs. Nobody cares if the time stamps are several decades old. Independent scholarship is independent scholarship.

I meant the timestamps of the posts. They were posted at the same time.

Somebody uploaded posts at the same time? Who cares?

You still lost the argument about the vast scholarly concensus that Jesus existed.

I fully agree that thousands of theologists believe he existed. If you had evidence of thousands of unbiased, independent "scholars" then you might have something.

Anyway, no one can say with 100% certainty because we don't have decent sources. Contemporary, first-hand, unbiased sources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is getting boring. Going back to OP's initial post:

Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

Seems to be asking more about the origin of the theology? Like, do we:
a. think Jesus was a real guy who existed and was divine?
b. think Jesus was a real guy, but Paul and the other early Christians made up stories about his miracles and divinity?
c. think Jesus was entirely fictional?

I think it's most likely that he was a real guy.

Not sure who made up the stories about the supernatural aspects.

All the supernatural elements already existed in other contemporaneous mythologies and religions.