Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

Denying Jesus ever existed, that his existence is a hoax, is a fringe belief - a conspiracy theory. Like there was a cult that began while he was alive, but it was a hoax because he never was alive. How ridiculous. Do you people believe Mohammed never existed too? LOL

Nobody
Denied
His
Existence

Most have said “very likely” existed or “very very very likely existed”.

Not important that he existed. Lots of people exist -- none are the son of god, born of a virgin, who ascended into heaven where he lives forever at the right hand of his father, God, and rules over heaven and earth.

That’s theology, not history.

That's the point. Who cares if a guy named Jesus actually existed in 1st century Judea? The story about him is not history; it's theology.

Agree totally. It doesn’t even matter if there was an actual dude named Jesus or not. Believers have faith in the story of Jesus - the theology.

Actually, there are a lot of guys named Jesus back then -- a popular name at the time among Jews. And there were a lot of itinerant preachers, too, like there were in the early days of the American west.

Also, the particular story of Jesus of Nazareth is strikingly similar to earlier myths of dying/rising gods. Born of a virgin, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

And some of these gods were even born on Jesus' birthday, Dec 25. https://www.nairaland.com/4251378/list-gods-born-virgin-25th

A lot of this is well known, has been discussed before here on DCUM and doesn't interfere with people's belief in Christianity, which, as a religion, is built on faith. Anyone who would question their religion because of facts, does not have enough faith.

Faith can be built back up after learning disturbing facts about your religion. Some people just don't believe the facts when they hear them. Others, who may not have been very faithful in the first place, leave religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Really? Where’s your linked info those 3 things definitely never happened?

How exactly does one prove a negative?

pp must have evidence that those 3 things never occurred. She should link to the evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Really? Where’s your linked info those 3 things definitely never happened?

How exactly does one prove a negative?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Really? Where’s your linked info those 3 things definitely never happened?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very, very people doubt Jesus as a historical figure (which is entirely separate from Christianity).

Virtually all non-Christians recognize that such a person existed, much in the way that Cleopatra, Napoleon, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Gandhi, or any number of other historical figures existed. And then died as the 100% mortals they were.

LOL. You're comparing the "evidence" that Napolean or Gandhi existed with the evidence that Jesus existed?

As discussed on the other thread, Socrates is a closer comparison. But even he had contemporary evidence.

Yes, please. Let’s rehash the same arguments we all made yesterday.

56 pages of recycled denials and suddenly “it doesn’t matter Jesus existed.”

If it doesn’t matter to you, why are you even debating it here?

No deniers.

Just people who don’t know what “deny” means. Read a book. Or something.

As a pp above noted, only an illiterate person would say that no one on this thread denied the historicity of JC.

Why does this issue make you reply instantly in such a negative and almost delusional manner? Obviously the historicity of Christ means a great deal to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

You forgot:

- Virgin Birth

- Man walks on water

- All the aminals in the world in one wood boat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very, very people doubt Jesus as a historical figure (which is entirely separate from Christianity).

Virtually all non-Christians recognize that such a person existed, much in the way that Cleopatra, Napoleon, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Gandhi, or any number of other historical figures existed. And then died as the 100% mortals they were.

LOL. You're comparing the "evidence" that Napolean or Gandhi existed with the evidence that Jesus existed?

As discussed on the other thread, Socrates is a closer comparison. But even he had contemporary evidence.

Yes, please. Let’s rehash the same arguments we all made yesterday.

56 pages of recycled denials and suddenly “it doesn’t matter Jesus existed.”

If it doesn’t matter to you, why are you even debating it here?

No deniers.

Just people who don’t know what “deny” means. Read a book. Or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very, very people doubt Jesus as a historical figure (which is entirely separate from Christianity).

Virtually all non-Christians recognize that such a person existed, much in the way that Cleopatra, Napoleon, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Gandhi, or any number of other historical figures existed. And then died as the 100% mortals they were.

LOL. You're comparing the "evidence" that Napolean or Gandhi existed with the evidence that Jesus existed?

As discussed on the other thread, Socrates is a closer comparison. But even he had contemporary evidence.

Yes, please. Let’s rehash the same arguments we all made yesterday.

56 pages of recycled denials and suddenly “it doesn’t matter Jesus existed.”

If it doesn’t matter to you, why are you even debating it here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very, very people doubt Jesus as a historical figure (which is entirely separate from Christianity).

Virtually all non-Christians recognize that such a person existed, much in the way that Cleopatra, Napoleon, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Gandhi, or any number of other historical figures existed. And then died as the 100% mortals they were.

LOL. You're comparing the "evidence" that Napolean or Gandhi existed with the evidence that Jesus existed?

As discussed on the other thread, Socrates is a closer comparison. But even he had contemporary evidence.

Yes, please. Let’s rehash the same arguments we all made yesterday.

Anonymous wrote:Conspiracy theorists be like. . .

- Flat earth

- Moon landing fake

- False flag whatever

- Jesus did not exist

- Aliens something

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying you aren’t 100% certain isn’t denying. 99.9% certain isn’t denying. 90% certain isn’t denying. 51% isn’t denying.

“Most likely” isn’t denying.

Historians weigh the available evidence and see if it points to yes or no. For most things that happened in this era there is limited information. But what we do know points to yes.

So we aren’t not talking about denying. Nobody here has denied. I was asking for evidence that “many” unbiased historians who’ve looked at available data have said they are 100% certain (as claimed earlier). It’s a tough threshold to make with limited information.

I asked for the link to the source that estimates Christ’s historicity between 51%-99.9% and the poster hasn’t replied with the link.

People in scholarship and academia who deny the historical certainty of Christ are non-existent in the Western world, regardless of religious affiliation, or being atheist or agnostic.

I’ll try to find it when I’m back on my computer. And it didn’t give those %s - it said “more likely than not” which means 50.99% to 99.99%. It struck me because historians don’t seem that binary in their beliefs about this time period because there are limited primary sources.

How many nonbiased historians are 100% certain of anything from this time period?

I’m the “more likely than not” poster and you’re correct. I never said 51-99%, that’s just fabricated. I even clarified my post to say that I meant 99.9%, with .1% uncertainty because, as you say, we can’t ever be 100% sure about anything.

Some of the atheists here are so dishonest.