Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You forgot the scholar who likened you Jesus-deniers to Holocaust deniers.

No one here is a denier.

Facts.

Several of you say "likely existed" and "probably existed" leaving room for doubt and denial. Language. And facts.

He most likely existed, but there isn’t direct evidence. Not surprising given the era.

So, you're still standing outside the "vast scholarly consensus" and aligning yourself with the Holocaust deniers. ("The holocaust most likely happened but we can't be sure."). Got it.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus lived but was not a god in any way, and there is no evidence for a god of anything kind.

We might as well be arguing about Santa Claus. Or leprechauns. It’s meaningless.

Getting you to prove Jesus was not a god, and the meaning and uses of faith, is the topic for a whole different thread. But thanks for the grudging acknowledgement....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You forgot the scholar who likened you Jesus-deniers to Holocaust deniers.

No one here is a denier.

Facts.

Several of you say "likely existed" and "probably existed" leaving room for doubt and denial. Language. And facts.

He most likely existed, but there isn’t direct evidence. Not surprising given the era.

Jesus lived but was not a god in any way, and there is no evidence for a god of anything kind.

We might as well be arguing about Santa Claus. Or leprechauns. It’s meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....

I wonder if we can make a sticky from 12:09 so we don't have to keep rehashing this nonsense.

Put it right under the sticky about how Christians didn't steal Easter from the pagans.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You forgot the scholar who likened you Jesus-deniers to Holocaust deniers.

No one here is a denier.

Facts.

Several of you say "likely existed" and "probably existed" leaving room for doubt and denial. Language. And facts.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You forgot the scholar who likened you Jesus-deniers to Holocaust deniers.

No one here is a denier.

Facts.

^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.

Let's go back and recap again, shall we? Fun!

The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail.

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "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.”

2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed.

3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission."

4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and not part of the gospels, despite what some of you apparently think). Short version: Paul, who wrote starting in 33AD, knew Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples John and Peter. You'd think that if Jesus never existed, James would have said something. Ehrman writes that this is "the death knell" for mythicism.

4. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified?

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers and win international renown by finding Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- 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.

And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here.

Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers.

***

Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table:
- No scholarly credentials.
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because DCUM gets to decide.
- Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen take the gospels as, well, gospel. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus") and win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious.
- Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well....

I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add!

The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. (Nicholas Perrin)

Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus’ non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio. (Michael James McClymond)

One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust? (Bart Ehrman)

The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. (John Piper)

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.

You forgot the scholar who likened you Jesus-deniers to Holocaust deniers.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's sad that you can't be bothered to read posts like the ones at 10:57 and 11:06 that provide other types of evidence. Or the evidence from Paul (not in the gospels) who knew Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples John and Peter.

Here's the post on linguistic evidence again. You may be unable to provide your own scholarly credentials, but at least you can read.

So, no more posts saying "using the gospels is a disqualifier."

***


Linguistic evidence

Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.”

... [a story about Bart's German professor giving German anecdotes] ...

This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples.

Traditions Stemming from Aramaic

The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek.

My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner.

But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for?

The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans.

Reality Check: Jesus Existed

Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem.

But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. [bolding added] You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, for example.