Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

What is an “independent” report?

Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

That evidence is unnecessary. There's no requirement for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

You haven’t explained why the vast majority of scholars take Jesus’ existence as a certainty even without this stuff, yet you continue to insist on it.

Tell us why.

I don't know their reasoning. You'd have to ask them.

This has been posted many times here to show the basis for the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus exists.

Care to explain why you disagree with any of the elements? Right after you explain your scholarly credentials.

***

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

1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.”

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

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

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

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

The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers and win international renown by finding Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed.
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

You haven’t explained why the vast majority of scholars take Jesus’ existence as a certainty even without this stuff, yet you continue to insist on it.

Tell us why.

I don't know their reasoning. You'd have to ask them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

You haven’t explained why the vast majority of scholars take Jesus’ existence as a certainty even without this stuff, yet you continue to insist on it.

Tell us why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

I've explained countless times.

Because we currently don't have any primary sources/archeology artifacts/independent, eye-witness reports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK. Find some hard evidence that Jesus didn't exist. I'll wait.

Who are you talking to?

Anonymous wrote:

OK. Find some hard evidence that Jesus didn't exist. I'll wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

Thank you, “Staff Writer!”

This is a better definition.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hard%20Evidence

Official proof that something/someone is of boner producing quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

You disagree with the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed.

You’re unable to say why. Repeating that he “most likely” existed isn’t a why.

Try again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

Thank you, “Staff Writer!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?

We don’t have hard evidence, archeological artifacts or eye-witness accounts. Only soft evidence.

Based on the various interpretations of secondary sources it seems very likely that he existed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up.

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”?

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

It wasn’t a single reviewer who said things diametrically opposed to what you said. It was every single reviewer among hundreds. So, you’re not just lying about Wilson, you’re also lying about what people say about him.

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Once again, all but 1-2 out of many thousands of scholars are satisfied that the evidence we have—whatever you call it, hard or soft—proves Jesus certainly existed.

You’ve been asked why you disagree with the vast scholarly consensus and what your own scholarly credentials are. You’ve remained silent on your own credentials. And you’ve made fallacious arguments about scholars taking the gospels as gospel truth, and hilarious arguments about how Bart Ehrman is somehow biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Do you have any real credentials in the field? Do you have any criticisms that stand up to ridicule?