Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Time to cut through all the trolling about "Bart Ehrman loves Jesus" NOBODY SAID THIS and "'probably' is the same thing as 'certainly'" THE POINT WAS THAT THEY IS NOT THE SAME and "the only evidence is from the gospels but they don't count." CIRCULAR ARGUMENT How many times can you trolls repeat stuff that's patently untrue? IT'S TRUE

For newcomers, here are arguments that thousands of scholars make or agree with when they claim with certainty that Jesus existed. A few pages ago, somebody else put together multiple quotes comparing those who deny Jesus to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers.WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF HOLOCAUST & SPHERICAL EARTH

Wow. So many lies packed into one post. Impressive for a Sunday morning. Do you get extra heaven points each time you lie?

Not lies, just light-hearted characterizations of your silly arguments and obstinate refusal to understand the arguments made for Jesus' existence.

Definitely lies.

No one said Bart loves Jesus.
The point was that probably and certainly are not the same.
You can’t use Christian sources to validate Christian sources.
Nobody has denied he was a man.

Ah, so we all agree. Jesus existed.

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:“I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.”
━━ Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web.

This supports “most likely” existed.

“Prima facie”, which means gives the impression.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prima-facie

Good one. You found a single quote and picked out two words from it, ignoring the rest of the quote. And ignoring all the other quotes, and the linguistic and external evidence cited above.

As a classical scholar, you must know that's not how it works.

He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty.

The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that.

Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though.

The analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era
- many people were talking about him
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct

What else was there?

Now you're just trolling. From 10:57:

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.

Riiiiiiiight. Did you actually read it? Like I said, the linguistic analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era (Aramaic language)
- many people were talking about him (in other writings)
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct (comparing with Jewish texts)

No one said someone made him up.

Of course you didn't say somebody made Jesus up. It would be embarrassing to say this.

The problem is, you're afraid to acknowledge the consequences of your claim that Jesus might not have existed (let's translate your "likely existed" into a 1-10% probability Jesus did not exist).

Namely, if there's some chance Jesus didn't exist, then SOMEONE MUST HAVE MADE HIM UP.

Does that help? Sorry for the caps, but it seems so necessary in your case.

I wouldn’t say someone made him up because I think that’s highly unlikely. I do think he very likely lived. We just don’t have hard evidence.

You are not smart enough, well trained enough, educated enough, etc, to pass judgment on the evidence.

What are your degrees and credentials? What have you authored or published? Where and what have you researched?

Do you have any degree, at all? In anything?

Seems like it’s easier for you to throw out ad hominems than produce hard evidence.

So you don’t even have a BS or BA, or an Associates degree, but you are telling every scholar and academic in the western world who teach other scholars and know multiple languages and have written books and conducted research in the Middle East, they are wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Time to cut through all the trolling about "Bart Ehrman loves Jesus" NOBODY SAID THIS and "'probably' is the same thing as 'certainly'" THE POINT WAS THAT THEY IS NOT THE SAME and "the only evidence is from the gospels but they don't count." CIRCULAR ARGUMENT How many times can you trolls repeat stuff that's patently untrue? IT'S TRUE

For newcomers, here are arguments that thousands of scholars make or agree with when they claim with certainty that Jesus existed. A few pages ago, somebody else put together multiple quotes comparing those who deny Jesus to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers.WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF HOLOCAUST & SPHERICAL EARTH

Wow. So many lies packed into one post. Impressive for a Sunday morning. Do you get extra heaven points each time you lie?

Not lies, just light-hearted characterizations of your silly arguments and obstinate refusal to understand the arguments made for Jesus' existence.

Definitely lies.

No one said Bart loves Jesus.
The point was that probably and certainly are not the same.
You can’t use Christian sources to validate Christian sources.
Nobody has denied he was a man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.”
━━ Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web.

This supports “most likely” existed.

“Prima facie”, which means gives the impression.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prima-facie

Good one. You found a single quote and picked out two words from it, ignoring the rest of the quote. And ignoring all the other quotes, and the linguistic and external evidence cited above.

As a classical scholar, you must know that's not how it works.

He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty.

The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that.

Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though.

The analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era
- many people were talking about him
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct

What else was there?

Now you're just trolling. From 10:57:

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.

Riiiiiiiight. Did you actually read it? Like I said, the linguistic analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era (Aramaic language)
- many people were talking about him (in other writings)
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct (comparing with Jewish texts)

No one said someone made him up.

Of course you didn't say somebody made Jesus up. It would be embarrassing to say this.

The problem is, you're afraid to acknowledge the consequences of your claim that Jesus might not have existed (let's translate your "likely existed" into a 1-10% probability Jesus did not exist).

Namely, if there's some chance Jesus didn't exist, then SOMEONE MUST HAVE MADE HIM UP.

Does that help? Sorry for the caps, but it seems so necessary in your case.

I wouldn’t say someone made him up because I think that’s highly unlikely. I do think he very likely lived. We just don’t have hard evidence.

You are not smart enough, well trained enough, educated enough, etc, to pass judgment on the evidence.

What are your degrees and credentials? What have you authored or published? Where and what have you researched?

Do you have any degree, at all? In anything?

Seems like it’s easier for you to throw out ad hominems than produce hard evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.”
━━ Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web.

This supports “most likely” existed.

“Prima facie”, which means gives the impression.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prima-facie

Good one. You found a single quote and picked out two words from it, ignoring the rest of the quote. And ignoring all the other quotes, and the linguistic and external evidence cited above.

As a classical scholar, you must know that's not how it works.

He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty.

The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that.

Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though.

The analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era
- many people were talking about him
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct

What else was there?

Now you're just trolling. From 10:57:

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.

Riiiiiiiight. Did you actually read it? Like I said, the linguistic analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era (Aramaic language)
- many people were talking about him (in other writings)
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct (comparing with Jewish texts)

No one said someone made him up.

Of course you didn't say somebody made Jesus up. It would be embarrassing to say this.

The problem is, you're afraid to acknowledge the consequences of your claim that Jesus might not have existed (let's translate your "likely existed" into a 1-10% probability Jesus did not exist).

Namely, if there's some chance Jesus didn't exist, then SOMEONE MUST HAVE MADE HIM UP.

Does that help? Sorry for the caps, but it seems so necessary in your case.

I wouldn’t say someone made him up because I think that’s highly unlikely. I do think he very likely lived. We just don’t have hard evidence.

You are not smart enough, well trained enough, educated enough, etc, to pass judgment on the evidence.

What are your degrees and credentials? What have you authored or published? Where and what have you researched?

Do you have any degree, at all? In anything?

Seems like it’s easier for you to throw out ad hominems than produce hard evidence.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying.

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying.

So why don't you back up and tell us your larger point. Make your point explicit. Spending days on DCUM trying (despite your own lack of credentials) to discredit thousands of scholars by calling their work irrelevant, biased, or not direct seems evidence that you're desperately trying to open up space for denying and denials.

Choose one.
1. Jesus "likely" or "probably" existed--but there's room for doubt and the deniers, even if it's small.
2. Jesus definitely existed (the "vast scholarly consensus" per Ehrman).

A guy named Jesus most likely lived. We don’t have any direct evidence of it though.

So you're in the camp of, I dunno, 1-10% possibility of denial. Shake hands with the skinhead Holocaust deniers.

1) not denying - just saying we don’t have evidence

2) we have hard evidence and eyewitnesses to the Holocaust so your comparison doesn’t even make sense if there was a denier

Parse this for us, please. Saying "we don't have evidence"
1. Flies in the face of the evidence above, which you cavalierly dismiss as biased or irrelevant.
2. Opens the door wide to denial.

Denying means that you think someone made it up. Realistically, I don’t think someone made it up.

We just don’t have hard evidence.

The "vast historical consensus" thinks the evidence is solid, that Jesus existed with certainty.

Without using cheap words like "biased" and "irrelevant," can you explain why you disagree? (Honestly, calling Bart Ehrman biased in favor of finding Jesus existed is the funniest thing I've read today.)

Feel free to lean on your credentials and scholarly work on the field to back up your, ahem, opinions.

What is Bart’s background? What did he do up until he became an atheist? What did he do after he became an atheist.

Do you know what bias means?

Bart hasn't been religious for 20-30 years. If anything, if he could disprove Jesus' existence he would, because he could make even more money and go down in history.

Do you know what bias means?

What has he been doing over those years? He’s still deep into NT analysis. His bias isn’t explicit.

I know someone on here is his #1 fan but he isn’t independent or unbiased.

He's deep into NT analysis in order to DISPROVE it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You need to explain how, in Bart's case, doing NT analysis to disprove Christian theology counter-intuitively makes Bart a champion for Jesus existing. Because in Bart's case it makes no sense.

Also in Bart's case there would be plenty more money made if he could prove Jesus never existed. That's what bias is about.

You're the one focussing on Bart. You keep avoiding explaining why Jewish scholars Levine and Fredericton are "biased" in favor of Jesus' existence. \

Some poster is crazy obsessed with him and posts about him incessantly.

Because atheist pp's are unable to find bias with the other two of the original trio, Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen, who also argue it's certain Jesus existed.

Bart has written a book on the certain existence of Jesus. Bart also promotes himself constantly, to NPR and everywhere else. So it's easier to find quotes from Bart than from the thousands of ivory tower academics.

All three are NT scholars, not independent historians.

And neither Jewish woman is a traditionally Jewish. One was formerly Catholic. Was one even a Jew for Jesus? I don’t have their bios open right now.

Which one was formerly Catholic?

I just went back 10 pages and still couldn't find my links. Maybe if some nut wasn't obsessively posting irrelevant quotes and images it'd be easier to find. Anyway. Google them. It's not hard to find.

why are the quotes irrelevant?

Most are off topic - deniers, flat earthers, etc.

It’s not off topic. How is comparing people who deny the historical existence of Jesus to other loons irrelevant?

“So in one sense I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot.”
━━ Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University, on Larry Hurtado’s Blog.
[Report Post]


Anonymous



“This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.”
━━ Maurice Casey, Nottingham University, in Jesus of Nazareth

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.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.”
━━ Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web.

This supports “most likely” existed.

“Prima facie”, which means gives the impression.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prima-facie

Good one. You found a single quote and picked out two words from it, ignoring the rest of the quote. And ignoring all the other quotes, and the linguistic and external evidence cited above.

As a classical scholar, you must know that's not how it works.

He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty.

The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that.

Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though.

The analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era
- many people were talking about him
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct

What else was there?

Now you're just trolling. From 10:57:

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.

Riiiiiiiight. Did you actually read it? Like I said, the linguistic analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era (Aramaic language)
- many people were talking about him (in other writings)
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct (comparing with Jewish texts)

No one said someone made him up.

Of course you didn't say somebody made Jesus up. It would be embarrassing to say this.

The problem is, you're afraid to acknowledge the consequences of your claim that Jesus might not have existed (let's translate your "likely existed" into a 1-10% probability Jesus did not exist).

Namely, if there's some chance Jesus didn't exist, then SOMEONE MUST HAVE MADE HIM UP.

Does that help? Sorry for the caps, but it seems so necessary in your case.

I wouldn’t say someone made him up because I think that’s highly unlikely. I do think he very likely lived. We just don’t have hard evidence.

You are not smart enough, well trained enough, educated enough, etc, to pass judgment on the evidence.

What are your degrees and credentials? What have you authored or published? Where and what have you researched?

Do you have any degree, at all? In anything?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.”
━━ Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web.

This supports “most likely” existed.

“Prima facie”, which means gives the impression.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prima-facie

Good one. You found a single quote and picked out two words from it, ignoring the rest of the quote. And ignoring all the other quotes, and the linguistic and external evidence cited above.

As a classical scholar, you must know that's not how it works.

He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty.

The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that.

Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though.

The analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era
- many people were talking about him
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct

What else was there?

Now you're just trolling. From 10:57:

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.

Riiiiiiiight. Did you actually read it? Like I said, the linguistic analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era (Aramaic language)
- many people were talking about him (in other writings)
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct (comparing with Jewish texts)

No one said someone made him up.

Of course you didn't say somebody made Jesus up. It would be embarrassing to say this.

The problem is, you're afraid to acknowledge the consequences of your claim that Jesus might not have existed (let's translate your "likely existed" into a 1-10% probability Jesus did not exist).

Namely, if there's some chance Jesus didn't exist, then SOMEONE MUST HAVE MADE HIM UP.

Does that help? Sorry for the caps, but it seems so necessary in your case.

I wouldn’t say someone made him up because I think that’s highly unlikely. I do think he very likely lived. We just don’t have hard evidence.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying.

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying.

So why don't you back up and tell us your larger point. Make your point explicit. Spending days on DCUM trying (despite your own lack of credentials) to discredit thousands of scholars by calling their work irrelevant, biased, or not direct seems evidence that you're desperately trying to open up space for denying and denials.

Choose one.
1. Jesus "likely" or "probably" existed--but there's room for doubt and the deniers, even if it's small.
2. Jesus definitely existed (the "vast scholarly consensus" per Ehrman).

A guy named Jesus most likely lived. We don’t have any direct evidence of it though.

So you're in the camp of, I dunno, 1-10% possibility of denial. Shake hands with the skinhead Holocaust deniers.

1) not denying - just saying we don’t have evidence

2) we have hard evidence and eyewitnesses to the Holocaust so your comparison doesn’t even make sense if there was a denier

Parse this for us, please. Saying "we don't have evidence"
1. Flies in the face of the evidence above, which you cavalierly dismiss as biased or irrelevant.
2. Opens the door wide to denial.

Denying means that you think someone made it up. Realistically, I don’t think someone made it up.

We just don’t have hard evidence.

The "vast historical consensus" thinks the evidence is solid, that Jesus existed with certainty.

Without using cheap words like "biased" and "irrelevant," can you explain why you disagree? (Honestly, calling Bart Ehrman biased in favor of finding Jesus existed is the funniest thing I've read today.)

Feel free to lean on your credentials and scholarly work on the field to back up your, ahem, opinions.

What is Bart’s background? What did he do up until he became an atheist? What did he do after he became an atheist.

Do you know what bias means?

Bart hasn't been religious for 20-30 years. If anything, if he could disprove Jesus' existence he would, because he could make even more money and go down in history.

Do you know what bias means?

What has he been doing over those years? He’s still deep into NT analysis. His bias isn’t explicit.

I know someone on here is his #1 fan but he isn’t independent or unbiased.

He's deep into NT analysis in order to DISPROVE it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You need to explain how, in Bart's case, doing NT analysis to disprove Christian theology counter-intuitively makes Bart a champion for Jesus existing. Because in Bart's case it makes no sense.

Also in Bart's case there would be plenty more money made if he could prove Jesus never existed. That's what bias is about.

You're the one focussing on Bart. You keep avoiding explaining why Jewish scholars Levine and Fredericton are "biased" in favor of Jesus' existence. \

Some poster is crazy obsessed with him and posts about him incessantly.

Because atheist pp's are unable to find bias with the other two of the original trio, Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen, who also argue it's certain Jesus existed.

Bart has written a book on the certain existence of Jesus. Bart also promotes himself constantly, to NPR and everywhere else. So it's easier to find quotes from Bart than from the thousands of ivory tower academics.

All three are NT scholars, not independent historians.

And neither Jewish woman is a traditionally Jewish. One was formerly Catholic. Was one even a Jew for Jesus? I don’t have their bios open right now.

Which one was formerly Catholic?

I just went back 10 pages and still couldn't find my links. Maybe if some nut wasn't obsessively posting irrelevant quotes and images it'd be easier to find. Anyway. Google them. It's not hard to find.

why are the quotes irrelevant?

Most are off topic - deniers, flat earthers, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.”
━━ Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web.

This supports “most likely” existed.

“Prima facie”, which means gives the impression.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prima-facie

Good one. You found a single quote and picked out two words from it, ignoring the rest of the quote. And ignoring all the other quotes, and the linguistic and external evidence cited above.

As a classical scholar, you must know that's not how it works.

He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty.

The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that.

Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though.

The analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era
- many people were talking about him
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct

What else was there?

Now you're just trolling. From 10:57:

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.

Riiiiiiiight. Did you actually read it? Like I said, the linguistic analysis has shown:
- some writings came from approximately that era (Aramaic language)
- many people were talking about him (in other writings)
- some details about Jewish life in that era were correct (comparing with Jewish texts)

No one said someone made him up.

Of course you didn't say somebody made Jesus up. It would be embarrassing to say this.

The problem is, you're afraid to acknowledge the consequences of your claim that Jesus might not have existed (let's translate your "likely existed" into a 1-10% probability Jesus did not exist).

Namely, if there's some chance Jesus didn't exist, then SOMEONE MUST HAVE MADE HIM UP.

Does that help? Sorry for the caps, but it seems so necessary in your case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Time to cut through all the trolling about "Bart Ehrman loves Jesus" NOBODY SAID THIS and "'probably' is the same thing as 'certainly'" THE POINT WAS THAT THEY IS NOT THE SAME and "the only evidence is from the gospels but they don't count." CIRCULAR ARGUMENT How many times can you trolls repeat stuff that's patently untrue? IT'S TRUE

For newcomers, here are arguments that thousands of scholars make or agree with when they claim with certainty that Jesus existed. A few pages ago, somebody else put together multiple quotes comparing those who deny Jesus to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers.WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF HOLOCAUST & SPHERICAL EARTH

Wow. So many lies packed into one post. Impressive for a Sunday morning. Do you get extra heaven points each time you lie?

Not lies, just light-hearted characterizations of your silly arguments and obstinate refusal to understand the arguments made for Jesus' existence.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying.

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying.

So why don't you back up and tell us your larger point. Make your point explicit. Spending days on DCUM trying (despite your own lack of credentials) to discredit thousands of scholars by calling their work irrelevant, biased, or not direct seems evidence that you're desperately trying to open up space for denying and denials.

Choose one.
1. Jesus "likely" or "probably" existed--but there's room for doubt and the deniers, even if it's small.
2. Jesus definitely existed (the "vast scholarly consensus" per Ehrman).

A guy named Jesus most likely lived. We don’t have any direct evidence of it though.

So you're in the camp of, I dunno, 1-10% possibility of denial. Shake hands with the skinhead Holocaust deniers.

1) not denying - just saying we don’t have evidence

2) we have hard evidence and eyewitnesses to the Holocaust so your comparison doesn’t even make sense if there was a denier

Parse this for us, please. Saying "we don't have evidence"
1. Flies in the face of the evidence above, which you cavalierly dismiss as biased or irrelevant.
2. Opens the door wide to denial.

Denying means that you think someone made it up. Realistically, I don’t think someone made it up.

We just don’t have hard evidence.

The "vast historical consensus" thinks the evidence is solid, that Jesus existed with certainty.

Without using cheap words like "biased" and "irrelevant," can you explain why you disagree? (Honestly, calling Bart Ehrman biased in favor of finding Jesus existed is the funniest thing I've read today.)

Feel free to lean on your credentials and scholarly work on the field to back up your, ahem, opinions.

What is Bart’s background? What did he do up until he became an atheist? What did he do after he became an atheist.

Do you know what bias means?

Bart hasn't been religious for 20-30 years. If anything, if he could disprove Jesus' existence he would, because he could make even more money and go down in history.

Do you know what bias means?

What has he been doing over those years? He’s still deep into NT analysis. His bias isn’t explicit.

I know someone on here is his #1 fan but he isn’t independent or unbiased.

He's deep into NT analysis in order to DISPROVE it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You need to explain how, in Bart's case, doing NT analysis to disprove Christian theology counter-intuitively makes Bart a champion for Jesus existing. Because in Bart's case it makes no sense.

Also in Bart's case there would be plenty more money made if he could prove Jesus never existed. That's what bias is about.

You're the one focussing on Bart. You keep avoiding explaining why Jewish scholars Levine and Fredericton are "biased" in favor of Jesus' existence. \

Some poster is crazy obsessed with him and posts about him incessantly.

Because atheist pp's are unable to find bias with the other two of the original trio, Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen, who also argue it's certain Jesus existed.

Bart has written a book on the certain existence of Jesus. Bart also promotes himself constantly, to NPR and everywhere else. So it's easier to find quotes from Bart than from the thousands of ivory tower academics.

All three are NT scholars, not independent historians.

And neither Jewish woman is a traditionally Jewish. One was formerly Catholic. Was one even a Jew for Jesus? I don’t have their bios open right now.

Which one was formerly Catholic?

I just went back 10 pages and still couldn't find my links. Maybe if some nut wasn't obsessively posting irrelevant quotes and images it'd be easier to find. Anyway. Google them. It's not hard to find.

No matter, finding these people were ex-Catholics would actually work against you, just like Bart Ehrman being an atheist already works against you.

You're completely unable to produce the missing leap in logic. Namely, why you think somebody with a vested interest in proving Jesus did not exist (fame, fortune, scholarly acclaim) would instead want to prove he does exist. Your argument "because they've studied the New Testament" makes no sense.

-- Not the person posting quotes

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying.

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying.

So why don't you back up and tell us your larger point. Make your point explicit. Spending days on DCUM trying (despite your own lack of credentials) to discredit thousands of scholars by calling their work irrelevant, biased, or not direct seems evidence that you're desperately trying to open up space for denying and denials.

Choose one.
1. Jesus "likely" or "probably" existed--but there's room for doubt and the deniers, even if it's small.
2. Jesus definitely existed (the "vast scholarly consensus" per Ehrman).

A guy named Jesus most likely lived. We don’t have any direct evidence of it though.

So you're in the camp of, I dunno, 1-10% possibility of denial. Shake hands with the skinhead Holocaust deniers.

1) not denying - just saying we don’t have evidence

2) we have hard evidence and eyewitnesses to the Holocaust so your comparison doesn’t even make sense if there was a denier

Parse this for us, please. Saying "we don't have evidence"
1. Flies in the face of the evidence above, which you cavalierly dismiss as biased or irrelevant.
2. Opens the door wide to denial.

Denying means that you think someone made it up. Realistically, I don’t think someone made it up.

We just don’t have hard evidence.

The "vast historical consensus" thinks the evidence is solid, that Jesus existed with certainty.

Without using cheap words like "biased" and "irrelevant," can you explain why you disagree? (Honestly, calling Bart Ehrman biased in favor of finding Jesus existed is the funniest thing I've read today.)

Feel free to lean on your credentials and scholarly work on the field to back up your, ahem, opinions.

What is Bart’s background? What did he do up until he became an atheist? What did he do after he became an atheist.

Do you know what bias means?

Bart hasn't been religious for 20-30 years. If anything, if he could disprove Jesus' existence he would, because he could make even more money and go down in history.

Do you know what bias means?

What has he been doing over those years? He’s still deep into NT analysis. His bias isn’t explicit.

I know someone on here is his #1 fan but he isn’t independent or unbiased.

He's deep into NT analysis in order to DISPROVE it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You need to explain how, in Bart's case, doing NT analysis to disprove Christian theology counter-intuitively makes Bart a champion for Jesus existing. Because in Bart's case it makes no sense.

Also in Bart's case there would be plenty more money made if he could prove Jesus never existed. That's what bias is about.

You're the one focussing on Bart. You keep avoiding explaining why Jewish scholars Levine and Fredericton are "biased" in favor of Jesus' existence. \

Some poster is crazy obsessed with him and posts about him incessantly.

Because atheist pp's are unable to find bias with the other two of the original trio, Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen, who also argue it's certain Jesus existed.

Bart has written a book on the certain existence of Jesus. Bart also promotes himself constantly, to NPR and everywhere else. So it's easier to find quotes from Bart than from the thousands of ivory tower academics.

All three are NT scholars, not independent historians.

And neither Jewish woman is a traditionally Jewish. One was formerly Catholic. Was one even a Jew for Jesus? I don’t have their bios open right now.

Which one was formerly Catholic?

I just went back 10 pages and still couldn't find my links. Maybe if some nut wasn't obsessively posting irrelevant quotes and images it'd be easier to find. Anyway. Google them. It's not hard to find.

why are the quotes irrelevant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ehrman's press agent is working hard on a Sunday. Doesn't he give you the day off?

psh, like Professor Ehrman needs a press agent.

Truth never takes a day off.

“This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead. …

T]here is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”