Anonymous wrote:But the ancient references to Jesus are not just found in works by Christian authors, an argument that supports the historical authenticity of the character. “Jesus is also mentioned in ancient Jewish and Roman texts,” says McCane. For example, around the year 93, the Pharisee historian Flavius ​​Josephus left in his work Jewish Antiquities at least one indisputable reference to the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Two decades later, the Romans Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus; the latter explained that the founder of the sect of Christians was executed during the mandate of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governing in Judea.

However, for Byron McCane, archaeologist and historian of religions and Judaism at the Atlantic University of Florida (USA), both the baptism and the crucifixion are stories that the first Christians are unlikely to have invented, since neither of them “supports their interests in any way,” he asserts to OpenMind. “The baptism shows Jesus to be a disciple of (and therefore inferior to) John the Baptist, and the crucifixion was a humiliating punishment reserved for criminals.”

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific-insights/did-jesus-of-nazareth-actually-exist-the-evidence-says-yes/amp/

Lots of scholars include this line of argument as one plank in a whole raft of arguments. Our old buddy Bart does, too. Why make up something that makes your hero look humiliated and weak?

In [AD 33] The 1 Corinthians 15 creedal formula we hear of Jesus as an historical figure, including “that Christ died… and that He was buried.”
In [AD 45] Paul's letters to churches at Corinth, Galatia, etc. were speaking of an historical Jesus (e.g. “born of a woman, born under the Law,” “born of a descendant of David,” he had a “brother”, “[Jewish leaders] both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets,” and “that Christ died… and that He was buried” etc.)
In [AD 55] Thallus's 3rd volume of his history book speaks of Jesus's crucifixion, and consequences in “many places in Judea and other districts”
In [AD 70] The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke spoke of Jesus as a historical figure, “just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses”
In [AD 70] Acts of the Apostles we also hear often of "Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified,"
[AD 80] The Gospel of John we hear often of this historical "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph"
[AD 93] Josephus's Jewish Antiquities 18 speaks of this Jesus who "won over many Jews and many of the Greeks"... "Pilate... condemned him to be crucified"
[AD 93] Josephus's Jewish Antiquities 20 we hear of how "the Sanhedrin [was convened] and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ," (note James is well-known as Jesus's biological brother often in Paul's letters; Paul knew James personally).
[AD 95] 1 Clement's letter speaks of Jesus, e.g. "remembering the words of the Lord Jesus" who came from "the line of Judah."
[AD 100] The Didache speaks of Jesus, from "the holy vine of... David" (i.e. a descendent).
[AD 100] Mara-Bar Sarapion's letter to his son likely refers to Jesus in a line of references to historical figures like Socrates, saying the Jews gained nothing from "executing their wise king".
[AD 105] Papias's report speaks of hearing what living disciple-witnesses of Jesus were still teaching ("the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying")
[AD 107] Ignatius's Epistle to the Smyrnæans also speaks of "the seed of David according to the flesh," "baptized by John," and "under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross]"
[AD 110] Polycarp's letter to the Philippians speaks of Jesus as a historical figure, e.g. how he was killed "upon the tree" (a Jewish prophetic reference to the cross).
[AD 111] Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan speaks of Jesus as a historical figure, and even how Christians sang "a hymn to Christ as to a god" (while himself believing Jesus was merely a recently executed man.)
[AD 115] Tacitus's Annals speaks of "Christus, from whom the name ["Christians"] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"
[AD 120] Seutonius's Life of Emperor Claudius also mentions "Chrestus" and his followers ("[Claudius] expelled them from Rome," which is true of Christians).
[AD 150] Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho records that the historical Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar."
[AD 165] Lucian's book, The Death of Peregrinus speaks of Christians quite a bit, and how Jesus "was crucified", calling him a historical "crucified sage."
[AD 175] Irenaeus's book, Against Heresies too refers to Jesus as a historical figure, "being of flesh and blood.... [and was less than] fifty years old;"
This is relevant because Jesus died in AD 30 (or AD 33) and these reports represent a true diversity of independent attestations supporting his existence. These sources reporting on Jesus by and large were in a position to know the truth of the matter, and so have a justified belief. At the same time, there are no existing reports suggesting that people believed in a Jesus myth--not even one.

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:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

^ I said that above. The evidence is circumstantial, but the weight of it is pretty persuasive.

And here’s where you’re out of step with thousands of scholars, including the three above, who are convinced he definitely lived.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

ok, join the holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers. That’s who you are with such beliefs. Do you feel good about being in such company?

It takes a real Dr. Goebbels to respond to a post saying the evidence is persuasive and accuse them of being a denier. That’s a flat out lie. you’re a dishonest person, you should be ashamed, and the comparison is entirely appropriate.

Mark Allen Powell (NT professor at Trinity Lutheran, a founding editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus): “A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.” [Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster, 1998), 168.]

Why don’t you go start a thread about deniers? Off topic here.

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific...ist-the-evidence-says-yes/amp/

Still off-topic here. No one has denied his existence.

Anonymous wrote:But the ancient references to Jesus are not just found in works by Christian authors, an argument that supports the historical authenticity of the character. “Jesus is also mentioned in ancient Jewish and Roman texts,” says McCane. For example, around the year 93, the Pharisee historian Flavius ​​Josephus left in his work Jewish Antiquities at least one indisputable reference to the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Two decades later, the Romans Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus; the latter explained that the founder of the sect of Christians was executed during the mandate of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governing in Judea.

However, for Byron McCane, archaeologist and historian of religions and Judaism at the Atlantic University of Florida (USA), both the baptism and the crucifixion are stories that the first Christians are unlikely to have invented, since neither of them “supports their interests in any way,” he asserts to OpenMind. “The baptism shows Jesus to be a disciple of (and therefore inferior to) John the Baptist, and the crucifixion was a humiliating punishment reserved for criminals.”

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific-insights/did-jesus-of-nazareth-actually-exist-the-evidence-says-yes/amp/

Josephus & Tacitus are the best non-Christian sources, but they didn’t have direct knowledge themselves and there are questions about the authenticity of translations.

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:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

^ I said that above. The evidence is circumstantial, but the weight of it is pretty persuasive.

And here’s where you’re out of step with thousands of scholars, including the three above, who are convinced he definitely lived.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

ok, join the holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers. That’s who you are with such beliefs. Do you feel good about being in such company?

It takes a real Dr. Goebbels to respond to a post saying the evidence is persuasive and accuse them of being a denier. That’s a flat out lie. you’re a dishonest person, you should be ashamed, and the comparison is entirely appropriate.

Mark Allen Powell (NT professor at Trinity Lutheran, a founding editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus): “A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.” [Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster, 1998), 168.]

Why don’t you go start a thread about deniers? Off topic here.

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific...ist-the-evidence-says-yes/amp/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

^ I said that above. The evidence is circumstantial, but the weight of it is pretty persuasive.

And here’s where you’re out of step with thousands of scholars, including the three above, who are convinced he definitely lived.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

ok, join the holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers. That’s who you are with such beliefs. Do you feel good about being in such company?

It takes a real Dr. Goebbels to respond to a post saying the evidence is persuasive and accuse them of being a denier. That’s a flat out lie. you’re a dishonest person, you should be ashamed, and the comparison is entirely appropriate.

Mark Allen Powell (NT professor at Trinity Lutheran, a founding editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus): “A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.” [Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster, 1998), 168.]

Why don’t you go start a thread about deniers? Off topic here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

^ I said that above. The evidence is circumstantial, but the weight of it is pretty persuasive.

And here’s where you’re out of step with thousands of scholars, including the three above, who are convinced he definitely lived.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

ok, join the holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers. That’s who you are with such beliefs. Do you feel good about being in such company?

It takes a real Dr. Goebbels to respond to a post saying the evidence is persuasive and accuse them of being a denier. That’s a flat out lie. you’re a dishonest person, you should be ashamed, and the comparison is entirely appropriate.

Mark Allen Powell (NT professor at Trinity Lutheran, a founding editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus): “A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.” [Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster, 1998), 168.]

John Dickson, a religion historian who specializes in early Christianity and is the director of the Centre for Public Christianity in Australia, was one of two experts interviewed on the podcast.

Dickson commented that “secular historical scholarship has no doubts at all about whether Jesus of Nazareth lived,” citing multiple published examples to back up this claim.

You pick up the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is just up there on my shelf here, 1,600 pages compendium of all things Greek and Roman,” said Dickson.

“You turn to the section on Christianity, and you will find several paragraphs that begin to just outline what we know of the historical Jesus, and zero doubt is raised. Zero doubt is raised about whether this figure really lived.”

You could do it again with … volume 10 of The Cambridge Ancient History,” he added. “Turn to the section on the birth of Christianity and there are several pages written by a famous classicist about what we know of the historical Jesus. We could go on and on with this.”

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don’t know how evidence works. You don’t know about the burden of proof. You don’t know what likely means. And I’m guessing there’s a whole bunch of other stuff you don’t know.

But thanks for not disputing that there is absolutely zero evidence for his divinity and no reason to think that he was divine magical a God or any of that other stuff. None. Zero. That’s the point that matters.

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific...ist-the-evidence-says-yes/amp/

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.

You don’t know how evidence works. You don’t know about the burden of proof. You don’t know what likely means. And I’m guessing there’s a whole bunch of other stuff you don’t know.

But thanks for not disputing that there is absolutely zero evidence for his divinity and no reason to think that he was divine magical a God or any of that other stuff. None. Zero. That’s the point that matters.

But the ancient references to Jesus are not just found in works by Christian authors, an argument that supports the historical authenticity of the character. “Jesus is also mentioned in ancient Jewish and Roman texts,” says McCane. For example, around the year 93, the Pharisee historian Flavius ​​Josephus left in his work Jewish Antiquities at least one indisputable reference to the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Two decades later, the Romans Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus; the latter explained that the founder of the sect of Christians was executed during the mandate of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governing in Judea.

However, for Byron McCane, archaeologist and historian of religions and Judaism at the Atlantic University of Florida (USA), both the baptism and the crucifixion are stories that the first Christians are unlikely to have invented, since neither of them “supports their interests in any way,” he asserts to OpenMind. “The baptism shows Jesus to be a disciple of (and therefore inferior to) John the Baptist, and the crucifixion was a humiliating punishment reserved for criminals.”

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific-insights/did-jesus-of-nazareth-actually-exist-the-evidence-says-yes/amp/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist.

No one denied.

You opened up the probability of denial by saying there was a 1-49% chance Jesus didn’t exist. Enough of the dumb semantic games.

No one said there was a 49% chance. I can see what the PP got frustrated with the blatant lying. Isn’t that a sin or something? Thou shall not troll?

“Most likely” exists is not denying. That *is* the most likely scenario. We just don’t have definitive evidence that he lived. We only have people who heard about him from other people and then some people wrote it down based on what they heard.

^ I said that above. The evidence is circumstantial, but the weight of it is pretty persuasive.

And here’s where you’re out of step with thousands of scholars, including the three above, who are convinced he definitely lived.

They think the circumstantial evidence is compelling. That doesn’t make it definitive.

Cite, please. Link to someone who calls the evidence “compelling but not definitive.”

I said that above, a couple of days ago. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's pretty persuasive nonetheless.

ok, join the holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers. That’s who you are with such beliefs. Do you feel good about being in such company?

It takes a real Dr. Goebbels to respond to a post saying the evidence is persuasive and accuse them of being a denier. That’s a flat out lie. you’re a dishonest person, you should be ashamed, and the comparison is entirely appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased against finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did:
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "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."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty.
- ???

Bumping this because some of you still think you know better than thousands of scholars (historians, classicists and theologians) who agree Jesus definitely existed.

Again…

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof.

Again, Ehrman uses external and linguistic sources as well. How many times do we need to repeat this?

Again, Ehrman is an atheist and Levine and Fredricksen are Jewish. All three are, if anything, biased against finding Jesus existed.

What are your scholarly credentials?

This idea that you can’t use the gospels as evidence is based on a basic, total misunderstanding of how scholars use the gospels as evidence.

No, scholars like Bart certainly don’t rely on faith in the gospels to support their certainty that Jesus existed. If you’ve read anything else by Bart about the gospels, you know that’s ridiculous, he never takes anything in the gospels as fact.

Let’s let Bart, who self-promotes more than other scholars and so has more quotes on the web, explain:

“If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But …

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.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. …”

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

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure.

Most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth.

While historians and scholars abound who doubt Jesus performed miracles, literally over 99.9% of them (and 100% of relevantly credentialed professors) believe he existed. See examples of experts commenting on the status in their own field:

Paul Maier (Ancient history professor at Western Michigan): “Open nearly any text in ancient history of Western civilization used widely in colleges and universities today, and you will find a generally sympathetic, if compressed, version of Jesus' life, which ends with some variation of the statement that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and died as a result. No ranking historian anywhere in the world shares the ultimate criticism voiced by German philosopher Bruno Bauer in the last century, that Jesus was a myth, that he never lived in fact.” [“Christianity Today”, XIX (1975): 63.]

Michael Grant (Atheist professor at Edinburgh, Classicist): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. 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.” [Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Simon & Schuster, 1992.] (Approvingly citing Otto Betz)

Richard Burridge (Biblical exegesis professor at King's College, Classicist): “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.” [Jesus, Now and Then (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), 34.]

Robert Van Voorst (NT professor at Western Theological): “The nonhistoricity [of Jesus] thesis has always been controversial… Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.” [Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 16.]

Craig Evans (NT professor at Asbury; Founder of Dead Sea Scrolls Inst.): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this.” [Jesus, The Final Days eds. Evans & Wright (Westminster, 2009), 3.]

Mark Allen Powell (NT professor at Trinity Lutheran, a founding editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus): “A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today – in the academic world at least – gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.” [Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster, 1998), 168.]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased against finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did:
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "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."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty.
- ???

Bumping this because some of you still think you know better than thousands of scholars (historians, classicists and theologians) who agree Jesus definitely existed.

Again…

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof.

Again, Ehrman uses external and linguistic sources as well. How many times do we need to repeat this?

Again, Ehrman is an atheist and Levine and Fredricksen are Jewish. All three are, if anything, biased against finding Jesus existed.

What are your scholarly credentials?