Anonymous wrote:

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/

Bumping because pp at 11:05 obviously didn't read it.

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31

1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.
4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.

Lawrence Mykytiuk’s feature article from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR with voluminous endnotes

Lawrence Mykytiuk, Ph.D., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, is Emeritus Professor of Library Science, Purdue University, where from 2014 to 2021 he had a continuing courtesy appointment as Associate Professor of History. His research focuses primarily on historicity of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, on which he has published both evidences and bibliographic surveys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only thing PP knows how to do is to post off-topic quotes.

Atheist pp lost the historical Jesus argument and is desperately trying to derail into other topics.

You seem to struggle with facts. Shocker.

If I were an atheist I'd be embarrassed to have you on my side. Ad hominems much?

Should we go back and count the number of off-topic “flat earther” posts? Because we can.

Those were quoting serious scholars about non-scholars like you. PP didn't make them up.

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).35

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s clear that many people heard about him. That’s not evidence.

Hundreds of people scattered across the Middle East. Many in the original Aramaic in the first decade or two (Bart says probably in the first decade) after Jesus' death.

Serious scholars accept this as evidence.

What are your scholarly credentials?

It’s evidence that people heard of him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only thing PP knows how to do is to post off-topic quotes.

Atheist pp lost the historical Jesus argument and is desperately trying to derail into other topics.

You seem to struggle with facts. Shocker.

If I were an atheist I'd be embarrassed to have you on my side. Ad hominems much?

Should we go back and count the number of off-topic “flat earther” posts? Because we can.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s clear that many people heard about him. That’s not evidence.

Hundreds of people scattered across the Middle East. Many in the original Aramaic in the first decade or two (Bart says probably in the first decade) after Jesus' death.

Serious scholars accept this as evidence.

What are your scholarly credentials?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They aren’t biased “against” at all. They have dedicated their careers to the study of the NT. They are deep into Christianity, whether they believe in the supernatural aspects or not.

You're kidding, right? You're not serious that Ehrman, Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of finding Jesus existed. These are people who have made their careers trying to disprove various parts of the gospels and publishing books like Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus.

Proving Jesus didn't exist would be the capstone of these peoples' careers.

You're a clown, sorry.

They are nitpicking details in the literature, not stepping back to look at archeological evidence of his existence. Again, using gospels as evidence is a disqualifier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only thing PP knows how to do is to post off-topic quotes.

Atheist pp lost the historical Jesus argument and is desperately trying to derail into other topics.

You seem to struggle with facts. Shocker.

If I were an atheist I'd be embarrassed to have you on my side. Ad hominems much?

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s clear that many people heard about him. That’s not evidence.

Some skeptics have maintained that the best account of the biblical and historical evidence is the theory that Jesus never existed; that is, that Jesus’ existence is a myth (Well 1999). Such a view is controversial and not widely held even by anti-Christian thinkers.” –Michael Martin, “Skeptical Perspectives on Jesus’ Resurrection”, in Delbert Burkett’s The Blackwell Companion to Jesus, Oxford: Blackwell, 2011), 285

Michael Martin, Atheist

Anonymous wrote:Is PP paid by the post? The more you post irrelevant quotes, the more we know you don’t have valid points to make.

No one here is denying his existence.

You're using weasel words like "pretty" convincing and "likely" existed. A third-grader know these leave word for doubt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only thing PP knows how to do is to post off-topic quotes.

Atheist pp lost the historical Jesus argument and is desperately trying to derail into other topics.

You seem to struggle with facts. Shocker.

Yes, it’s clear that many people heard about him. That’s not evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They aren’t biased “against” at all. They have dedicated their careers to the study of the NT. They are deep into Christianity, whether they believe in the supernatural aspects or not.

You're kidding, right? You're not serious that Ehrman, Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of finding Jesus existed. These are people who have made their careers trying to disprove various parts of the gospels and publishing books like Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus.

Proving Jesus didn't exist would be the capstone of these peoples' careers.

You're a clown, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only thing PP knows how to do is to post off-topic quotes.

Atheist pp lost the historical Jesus argument and is desperately trying to derail into other topics.