Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Bart’s agenda? What sources do you use for this topic? Who would you recommend?

Bart’s agenda is to make money with provocative titles like “Jesus, Interrupted.” Some DCUMers clearly eat it up. For a more nuanced discussion, you could read Marcus Borg or Dominic Crossan, in fact Ehrman took a lot of their material without attribution.

Are we going to question facts based on ad hominem attacks and questions of "agendas"? Because you do not want to go there, trust me. Address the facts please and demand the opposition do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

That’s great then. And more people than that wrote about Jesus. Why the double standard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

You don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “begging the question” or the role of second-hand evidence in law. You’d be more credible if you used terms like “second-hand source” and “hearsay,” but you won’t use these terms because they imply there could possibly be something behind them.

What’s your alternative explanation? Who do you think wrote the gospels, and why?

I understand what begging the question is perfectly.

Begging the question is when you use the point you’re trying to prove as an argument to prove that very same point. Rather than proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it. It’s also called circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.


https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-begging-the-question/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

If Plato were the only evidence then the existence of Socrates would be dubious. But Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote of Socrates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

You don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “begging the question” or the role of second-hand evidence in law. You’d be more credible if you used terms like “second-hand source” and “hearsay,” but you won’t use these terms because they imply there could possibly be something behind them.

What’s your alternative explanation? Who do you think wrote the gospels, and why?

Anonymous wrote:What is Bart’s agenda? What sources do you use for this topic? Who would you recommend?

Bart’s agenda is to make money with provocative titles like “Jesus, Interrupted.” Some DCUMers clearly eat it up. For a more nuanced discussion, you could read Marcus Borg or Dominic Crossan, in fact Ehrman took a lot of their material without attribution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

There's two references to Jesus in Josephus; only one is widely considered a forgery, that's the Testimonium Flavianum mentioned in your link. The other the passage referring to the trial and stoning of the "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." That passage is widely regarded as genuine. That's why I specified the "the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus"

The question also isn't "is the Bible true" the question is "did Jesus exist." That people, shortly after his lifetime, thought he existed is evidence of that. If I tell you "my grandfather's name was Wilson" you've got evidence that that is true. I never met the man and he's been dead about as long as the time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. It's hearsay and you might not find it convincing, but if you said "there's no evidence PP's grandfather was named Wilson" you'd be wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- Using the bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

+1. It may not be eye-witness, but there’s evidence. In fact there’s more evidence for Jesus than for many other men of the time, including Socrates. We only know about Socrates because his student Plato wrote about him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.

Anonymous wrote:Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively.

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not rehashing all this again because OP is a bored and wants to stir the pot.

OP, read the “Why Believe” thread for evidence that Jesus existed.

Opinion isn't evidence. Please, couid we get this straight. Your belief is a belief, an acceptance of events, without any proof. It's not proof.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah -- the stuff you don't learn in sunday school!

True. More people need to take theology in college because so many misunderstand Christianity and other religions having never progressed beyond a grade school understanding. Lots of them are internet educated atheists because of that, and they are tedious. The atheists who studied theology and philosophy formally are much more interesting and balanced.

People like Bart Ehrman?

Ehrman has an agenda that causes him to ignore conflicting opinions and lose a lot of nuance. So if you read him, go to some other sources as well.

such as?