Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

Re-read the posts.

Time stamp of a single post that claimed he didn’t exist?

Right. You can’t provide one because no one claimed that.

Seems like you are quick to believe certain things without any evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

An eyewitness account was written by John - the Book of John. He actually wrote in there that he was the eyewitness, and it was his personal account.

Again, you can’t use the Bible to validate the Bible.

And none of the gospels were eyewitness accounts. They were propaganda to sell Christianity.

Nonsense. In a court of law people testify about stuff involving themselves all day, every day. Can we not use Cicero because he was writing about powerful people of his time? Excluding the Bible is not the handy rhetorical trick you think it is.

It was written by men with an agenda. You can believe what they say because you like the story but that doesn’t make it credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

You’re playing games that everybody can see through. This thread wouldn’t be 43 pages if 9:01 and 9:05 (you?) weren’t obsessively asking for eye-witnesses.

Would it help you understand if we rephrase: 9:01/9:05 thinks it’s probable Jesus did not exist because they’re unconvinced by all the scholarship they casually dismiss as “biased.” The rest of us think it’s very probable he did, based on the same credible scholarship.

Ok. So we're all agreed then -- it's probable he did exist. Great!

It’s historical certainly He existed, and anyone who denies it is on the fringe, just like holocaust deniers, flat earthers, moon landing truthers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

You’re playing games that everybody can see through. This thread wouldn’t be 43 pages if 9:01 and 9:05 (you?) weren’t obsessively asking for eye-witnesses.

Would it help you understand if we rephrase: 9:01/9:05 thinks it’s probable Jesus did not exist because they’re unconvinced by all the scholarship they casually dismiss as “biased.” The rest of us think it’s very probable he did, based on the same credible scholarship.

Ok. So we're all agreed then -- it's probable he did exist. Great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholars of scripture think he lived? Shocker.

Some historians may *believe* that he lived (and he certainly had a following), but they don’t *know* he existed.

The vast majority of scholars think he lived. You don’t look great when you repeat your talking points ad nauseum instead of addressing pp’s links.

None definitively say he existed.

But the prophet Joseph Smith definitely existed. Why don’t you follow his Book of Mormon?

How do you pick which prophet to believe? Which story do you like best?

This is tangential to the existence of Jesus, i.e. a strawman argument.

Nope. Just pointing out the inconsistent, flawed logic.

DP. No it's a non-sequitur. The question under discussion is what evidence there is that Jesus is a historical person, not wether or not to become Christian. The Book of Mormon definitely is evidence that Joseph Smith existed, and everyone accepts it as such. There's no contradiction. It's not necessary evidence since he lived in the 19th century when most prominent people were much better attested and we have more documents, but if we lacked those, the Book of Mormon would be evidence, absolutely.

Maybe to pp, religious belief is dependent on the supposed founder of the religion being historical, i.e., real. Maybe pp would not be inclined to follow Christianity if Jesus were not an actual person who lived in ancient Israel.

Some people don't care so much about the original leader of a religion, and base their beliefs on faith, which doesn't require historical documentation. Faith allows people to believe all sorts of things that are unscientific - bodily ascension to heaven, an afterlife in heaven or hell, a supreme being, who though invisible, controls the world, even if you don't believe in him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

You’re playing games that everybody can see through. This thread wouldn’t be 43 pages if 9:01 and 9:05 (you?) weren’t obsessively asking for eye-witnesses.

Would it help you understand if we rephrase: 9:01/9:05 thinks it’s probable Jesus did not exist because they’re unconvinced by all the scholarship they casually dismiss as “biased.” The rest of us think it’s very probable he did, based on the same credible scholarship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

You’re playing games that everybody can see through. This thread wouldn’t be 43 pages if 9:01 and 9:05 (you?) weren’t obsessively asking for eye-witnesses.

Would it help you understand if we rephrase: 9:01/9:05 thinks it’s probable Jesus did not exist because they’re unconvinced by all the scholarship they casually dismiss as “biased.” The rest of us think it’s very probable he did, based on the same credible scholarship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholars of scripture think he lived? Shocker.

Some historians may *believe* that he lived (and he certainly had a following), but they don’t *know* he existed.

The vast majority of scholars think he lived. You don’t look great when you repeat your talking points ad nauseum instead of addressing pp’s links.

None definitively say he existed.

But the prophet Joseph Smith definitely existed. Why don’t you follow his Book of Mormon?

How do you pick which prophet to believe? Which story do you like best?

This is tangential to the existence of Jesus, i.e. a strawman argument.

Nope. Just pointing out the inconsistent, flawed logic.

DP. No it's a non-sequitur. The question under discussion is what evidence there is that Jesus is a historical person, not wether or not to become Christian. The Book of Mormon definitely is evidence that Joseph Smith existed, and everyone accepts it as such. There's no contradiction. It's not necessary evidence since he lived in the 19th century when most prominent people were much better attested and we have more documents, but if we lacked those, the Book of Mormon would be evidence, absolutely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

And there it is. With a wave of a hand you dismiss reknowned scholars with decades each of study of ancient languages and original sources. In favor of, what, sexual abusers like Carrier who have been called “problematic and unpersuasive,” and your own uninformed feelings.

Pat yourself on the back?

I have no idea who Carrier is. Are you the poster who is obsessed with pedophiles and sexual abusers? Gross.

Again, if there were indisputable evidence there would be no question. But there isn’t. The biased “scholars” don’t have it. You don’t have it. It doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, just that we will never know for sure because we don’t have indisputable evidence. I’m ok with that uncertainty. Doesn’t seem like you are.

You need to read at least some of the thread if you’re going to participate constructively here. Somebody posted about Carrier just a page ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Unbiased/independent, contemporaneous report.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, who should I trust? Some rando DCUMer who is blowing hot air, or pp’s dozen scholars who have put many years into learning ancient languages and studying the extant sources?

Again, and for what must be the 50th time, no one here is making the claim that Jesus the man didn't exist.

For the 50th time, one of you skeptics is obsessing over the fact that there’s no eye-witness testimony (except maybe John…) so maybe he didn’t exist. Finding one of the skeptic obsessive’s 50-some posts should be easy for you.

Literally no one claimed he didn’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

What would be indisputable evidence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you.

You mean, a bunch of biased scholars?

If there were indisputable evidence that he existed there wouldn’t be any question.

There’s not.

And there it is. With a wave of a hand you dismiss reknowned scholars with decades each of study of ancient languages and original sources. In favor of, what, sexual abusers like Carrier who have been called “problematic and unpersuasive,” and your own uninformed feelings.

Pat yourself on the back?

I have no idea who Carrier is. Are you the poster who is obsessed with pedophiles and sexual abusers? Gross.

Again, if there were indisputable evidence there would be no question. But there isn’t. The biased “scholars” don’t have it. You don’t have it. It doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, just that we will never know for sure because we don’t have indisputable evidence. I’m ok with that uncertainty. Doesn’t seem like you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.

But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true.

An eyewitness account was written by John - the Book of John. He actually wrote in there that he was the eyewitness, and it was his personal account.

Again, you can’t use the Bible to validate the Bible.

And none of the gospels were eyewitness accounts. They were propaganda to sell Christianity.

Nonsense. In a court of law people testify about stuff involving themselves all day, every day. Can we not use Cicero because he was writing about powerful people of his time? Excluding the Bible is not the handy rhetorical trick you think it is.

It was written by men with an agenda. You can believe what they say because you like the story but that doesn’t make it credible.