Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Weird, all the reviews seem to have read a completely different book. For example, here's one atheist reviewer complaining: "Unfortunately, A.N. Wilson goes to great lengths to convince the readers that Paul was a wonderful man and a religious genius, and that everyone who believes that Paul was a self-serving trouble maker must have misunderstood the Bible."

Also, Wilson wrote his book in 1997 but then in April 2009, he published an article in the Daily Mail affirming his rediscovery of faith, and conversion to Christianity, attacking at the same time both academic and media atheists.

PS, that was from Amazon and that review is the third or fourth down. The others aren't much different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Weird, all the reviews seem to have read a completely different book. For example, here's one atheist reviewer complaining: "Unfortunately, A.N. Wilson goes to great lengths to convince the readers that Paul was a wonderful man and a religious genius, and that everyone who believes that Paul was a self-serving trouble maker must have misunderstood the Bible."

Also, Wilson wrote his book in 1997 but then in April 2009, he published an article in the Daily Mail affirming his rediscovery of faith, and conversion to Christianity, attacking at the same time both academic and media atheists.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his 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:

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

Why would he have a “vested interest” in proving a negative? As hard as it is to prove he did exist, it’d be even harder to prove he didn’t.

NT academics aren’t independent, they are naturally biased. They have dedicated their careers towards something they believe to be “true” (supernatural & inconsistent bits aside).

I'm sorry, but this is just silly.

If Bart has any bias, it's toward finding Jesus DIDN'T exist. Bart has based his career on challenging various aspects of the Christian scriptures, writing books like "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted." He's made a lot of money doing so. He could make a lot more money and achieve internal fame if he could produce proof Jesus DIDN'T exist.

You don't even try to explain why Bart would want to find Jesus existed. Because you can't. There's not one good reason.

You think he had a motive going into his analysis?

Absolutely. Bart Ehrman is biased. He wants to discredit Christianity, and make a lot of money by doing it.

If even Bart thinks Jesus "certainly" existed and says you wafflers look "foolish," then Jesus existed.

He wants to discredit the supernatural aspects. He is deep into the NT.

Why would he want to discredit the supernatural but not the whole thing including Jesus' existence?

He's an atheist.

Your position makes zero sense.

Atheist doesn’t mean anti-Jesus.

Atheist just means you don’t believe in supernatural stuff. Nothing about historical figures.

It's unbelievable you're still trying to push this. You make zero sense.

As already noted, you're missing a big piece of logic. Namely, it's clear what Bart would gain proving Jesus DIDN'T exist: fame and fortune.

You're completely unable to explain what's in it for Bart by proving Jesus DID exist. No, "he studied the New Testament" isn't any kind of explanation. Nor is "there's a distinction between supernatural stuff and historical stuff." You fail massively in explaining motivation. If Bart could take it all, you know he would.

There is no evidence that he didn’t exist (that would be even more difficult than proving he did), so he wouldn’t be taken seriously if he did that. No fame. No money.

There’s nothing “in it” for him. Most academics are seeking “the truth”. Sometimes that truth is influenced by their background and deep-seated beliefs.

Puhleeze. With book titles like "Jesus, Interrupted" and 4-5 course offerings on The Great Courses, Bart is definitely in it at least partly for the money.

You keep mentioning "their background" in NT studies. But you still have zero explanation why that, alone, would cause Bart to believe Jesus existed. If anything, long familiarity often causes people to doubt.

I work in a research field. You don't understand what motivates researchers.

So they all have ulterior motives to get rich and famous?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed.

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

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:

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

Why would he have a “vested interest” in proving a negative? As hard as it is to prove he did exist, it’d be even harder to prove he didn’t.

NT academics aren’t independent, they are naturally biased. They have dedicated their careers towards something they believe to be “true” (supernatural & inconsistent bits aside).

I'm sorry, but this is just silly.

If Bart has any bias, it's toward finding Jesus DIDN'T exist. Bart has based his career on challenging various aspects of the Christian scriptures, writing books like "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted." He's made a lot of money doing so. He could make a lot more money and achieve internal fame if he could produce proof Jesus DIDN'T exist.

You don't even try to explain why Bart would want to find Jesus existed. Because you can't. There's not one good reason.

You think he had a motive going into his analysis?

Absolutely. Bart Ehrman is biased. He wants to discredit Christianity, and make a lot of money by doing it.

If even Bart thinks Jesus "certainly" existed and says you wafflers look "foolish," then Jesus existed.

He wants to discredit the supernatural aspects. He is deep into the NT.

Why would he want to discredit the supernatural but not the whole thing including Jesus' existence?

He's an atheist.

Your position makes zero sense.

Atheist doesn’t mean anti-Jesus.

Atheist just means you don’t believe in supernatural stuff. Nothing about historical figures.

It's unbelievable you're still trying to push this. You make zero sense.

As already noted, you're missing a big piece of logic. Namely, it's clear what Bart would gain proving Jesus DIDN'T exist: fame and fortune.

You're completely unable to explain what's in it for Bart by proving Jesus DID exist. No, "he studied the New Testament" isn't any kind of explanation. Nor is "there's a distinction between supernatural stuff and historical stuff." You fail massively in explaining motivation. If Bart could take it all, you know he would.

There is no evidence that he didn’t exist (that would be even more difficult than proving he did), so he wouldn’t be taken seriously if he did that. No fame. No money.

There’s nothing “in it” for him. Most academics are seeking “the truth”. Sometimes that truth is influenced by their background and deep-seated beliefs.

Puhleeze. With book titles like "Jesus, Interrupted" and 4-5 course offerings on The Great Courses, Bart is definitely in it at least partly for the money.

You keep mentioning "their background" in NT studies. But you still have zero explanation why that, alone, would cause Bart to believe Jesus existed. If anything, long familiarity often causes people to doubt.

I work in a research field. You don't understand what motivates researchers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he 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:

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

Why would he have a “vested interest” in proving a negative? As hard as it is to prove he did exist, it’d be even harder to prove he didn’t.

NT academics aren’t independent, they are naturally biased. They have dedicated their careers towards something they believe to be “true” (supernatural & inconsistent bits aside).

I'm sorry, but this is just silly.

If Bart has any bias, it's toward finding Jesus DIDN'T exist. Bart has based his career on challenging various aspects of the Christian scriptures, writing books like "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted." He's made a lot of money doing so. He could make a lot more money and achieve internal fame if he could produce proof Jesus DIDN'T exist.

You don't even try to explain why Bart would want to find Jesus existed. Because you can't. There's not one good reason.

You think he had a motive going into his analysis?

Absolutely. Bart Ehrman is biased. He wants to discredit Christianity, and make a lot of money by doing it.

If even Bart thinks Jesus "certainly" existed and says you wafflers look "foolish," then Jesus existed.

He wants to discredit the supernatural aspects. He is deep into the NT.

Why would he want to discredit the supernatural but not the whole thing including Jesus' existence?

He's an atheist.

Your position makes zero sense.

Atheist doesn’t mean anti-Jesus.

Atheist just means you don’t believe in supernatural stuff. Nothing about historical figures.

It's unbelievable you're still trying to push this. You make zero sense.

As already noted, you're missing a big piece of logic. Namely, it's clear what Bart would gain proving Jesus DIDN'T exist: fame and fortune.

You're completely unable to explain what's in it for Bart by proving Jesus DID exist. No, "he studied the New Testament" isn't any kind of explanation. Nor is "there's a distinction between supernatural stuff and historical stuff." You fail massively in explaining motivation. If Bart could take it all, you know he would.

There is no evidence that he didn’t exist (that would be even more difficult than proving he did), so he wouldn’t be taken seriously if he did that. No fame. No money.

There’s nothing “in it” for him. Most academics are seeking “the truth”. Sometimes that truth is influenced by their background and deep-seated beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports **for the holocaust and shape of the earth**. And no one here has denied he 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:

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

Why would he have a “vested interest” in proving a negative? As hard as it is to prove he did exist, it’d be even harder to prove he didn’t.

NT academics aren’t independent, they are naturally biased. They have dedicated their careers towards something they believe to be “true” (supernatural & inconsistent bits aside).

I'm sorry, but this is just silly.

If Bart has any bias, it's toward finding Jesus DIDN'T exist. Bart has based his career on challenging various aspects of the Christian scriptures, writing books like "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted." He's made a lot of money doing so. He could make a lot more money and achieve internal fame if he could produce proof Jesus DIDN'T exist.

You don't even try to explain why Bart would want to find Jesus existed. Because you can't. There's not one good reason.

You think he had a motive going into his analysis?

Absolutely. Bart Ehrman is biased. He wants to discredit Christianity, and make a lot of money by doing it.

If even Bart thinks Jesus "certainly" existed and says you wafflers look "foolish," then Jesus existed.

He wants to discredit the supernatural aspects. He is deep into the NT.

Why would he want to discredit the supernatural but not the whole thing including Jesus' existence?

He's an atheist.

Your position makes zero sense.

Atheist doesn’t mean anti-Jesus.

Atheist just means you don’t believe in supernatural stuff. Nothing about historical figures.

It's unbelievable you're still trying to push this. You make zero sense.

As already noted, you're missing a big piece of logic. Namely, it's clear what Bart would gain proving Jesus DIDN'T exist: fame and fortune.

You're completely unable to explain what's in it for Bart by proving Jesus DID exist. No, "he studied the New Testament" isn't any kind of explanation. Nor is "there's a distinction between supernatural stuff and historical stuff." You fail massively in explaining motivation. If Bart could take it all, you know he would.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.

Anonymous wrote:The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level.