Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

We don't need to go that far. Just a cursory glance at human history/psychology shows quite sufficiently that any such conceptions are fictitious. Not that we "can't understand it". We can't understand Dark Energy but we know it exists. Efficaciousness does not require understanding.With this god thing it is more of a "no discernible effect on anything in this universe" which means no evidence whatsoever. That alone creates the case of "not exist for all intents and purposes."

Bad example. We know that there was once lots of anti-matter and we know why there isn't so much anymore. And since we can make it in our labs we know it does exist regardless of intent or purpose. Why? Because you were told this as an innocent trusting non-critical child? You got emotional. You know how emotion affects judgement. How about this: Religion is bad for the culture, the society, the species. Well, actually science has already decided. Anything that can be asserted without evidence is just as easily dismissed without any concern at all. You're being a good straight man, Phat.Having been wrong about so many things in the past is exactly why the scientific methods, all of them, were devised and are so strongly and highly regarded.And yes, we "limit yourselves by sticking to evidence" and the other things you mention so to avoid the egregious errors of the past and their disastrous consequences. Proper analysis of an issue will lead to consensus. Good for us.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I have to wonder what happened to the historians and scribes of the time. Why did they not record the strange and mysterious workings of this young rabi? They recorded quite a bit about the movers and shakers of the time and, with their exchange of letters, we get a glimpse into the social sides of the society. Not a word of the miracle worker from the Levant.If a divine priest was performing such miracles to the extent the myths indicate then someone, even in a pitifully illiterate society, would have noticed and recorded, even the rumors, of the events. Those are the missing pieces of evidence that should be there if this myth were true.One could argue that we just haven’t found any such documentation because, reasons. Granted. IMHO unlikely. Among the myriad ministries I understand were prevalent at the time nothing stood out enough, apparently, to write about. Nothing any of these apocalyptic preachers said moved society enough for what few scribes there were to notice and record. If there were an outsized legacy from this rabi then it appears to have been developed decades after the fact by story tellers embellishing some interesting stories.I agree. Doesn't seem at all implausible.

Quick question too lazy to look up.The books of the new testament that are Paul's letters to various congregations, is there any debate of their authenticity?

There had to have been an early church or Saul would have had no one to persecute. If the secular historians accept Paul’s authorship, even in part, then by his own (accepted) words there was a church in existence. I find it difficult to believe that such a church would have developed from, say, a quantum fluctuation. Since the early followers were inspired by something, and Saul says it was this christ conception, then I have no problem personifying that conception as ‘Jesus’.A speculation:I imagine the early church as small cells of devout rebels hidden in back rooms where they discuss and pray with all the doors and windows covered. And I can accept that this new message of salvation and revolutionary hope was attractive to the radical religious fantasy believers of the time. Then Paul shows up. Things start to change. Paul travels around visiting these small hidden groups and gets himself in trouble with leaders of the early church and goes on a rampage of letters, admonishing the old views and demanding adherence to the new word. Everything from the divinity of Christ and the gift of the cross to his personal distaste for circumcision and women, make major marks on the philosophy of the movement. So much so that Paul’s writings still form the backbone of all Christianity.I have no idea what the initial Christic church was, flower child and/or rebel. But what they ended up with is the promise of forever life through divine salvation and a charge to convert the world. What they ended up with was the Pauline church.

I agree. Is someone making that argument? Only the two criteria?How about the rest of the gospel(s)? Is there any happening involving this charismatic rabi recorded earlier than the first gospel, Mark? Are there any reasons to show that Mark didn’t just write up a tall tale as was the want back then?I wouldn’t think the objection to Jesus would be some undocumented time/place of (supposed) birth. There are many more aspects to Jesus’ existence and actions that go undocumented even with that first narrative by Mark. Like all of them.

The total lack of evidence does that for me. Yes, I assume no evidence means no Jesus.

No, of course not. Nothing to question. But if you told me it was god running across the street I'd question. Quite plausible. But actual?Didn't the Romans record their executions? Wouldn't the governor's monthly status report to Caesar mention something as glorious and self-serving as offing another meddlesome rebel? Maybe everywhere but here?I'm not saying you're wrong, Rahvin. The scenarios are quite plausible. Just missing evidence, that IMHO shoulda/coulda/whoulda have been there if correct.When this kind of conclusion involves every aspect of the subject making them invisible to all outside the gospel ... there is a reasonable logical conclusion to be formed.

Not at all. Remember, Phat, I'm the one who poofed all the gods into oblivion with the power of my mind some time ago. I know very well what each and every one of those posers looks like. Not now, no. That quest to find has been completed. I ended up killing all of them, Phat. I killed each and every god, devil, satan, demon and all their associated kin, Phat. There is not one holy ghost left to find.I don't care for arguments made of apologists paper mache, Phat. They just repeat the same-old same-old. I've seen them all. I'll skip your embedded bullshit.

My mind was opened by Newton and Einstein, Nietzsche and Kant.Your mind was once a steel trap. Then you devoured a bible; now it is rusted shut.

Oooo, can 'o worms.What questions surround the supernatural claims made by the New Testament authors?

Me!? I'm the one asking.Were there such things? Is there a probability such executions were recorded and reported up the political chain?Does anyone out there know? It does no good to just ask me the same question. If I had answers I would not have had to inquire.

Ok, so now that the dust has settled, we can conclude the following:1. The biblical Jesus is a non-starter. Didn’t happen.
2. A historical Jesus is a probability in that: No one can say, as documented fact, what this someone did or said. All we have are the stories, suspect apocryphal.The stories make this place-holder Jesus seem like a loving flower child who liked to piss off his elders. Stories. It was all oral history, so it seems, since there was no parchment with any of these myths inked in until Mark (whoever) dropped his gospel. Everything after is suspect copy with embellishment. Especially that nutjob John. That boy was higher than I am and it burned his brain.

How about to "certainty", then.The church did not start itself. Such person or persons, the historical Jesus, exists to instantiate the founders.I give no abilities of any sort to this Jesus save to jawbone a small sect into existence.

quote:

---

​
The church did not start itself. Such person or persons, the historical Jesus, exists to instantiate the founders.

---

I see two statements of fact. What do you see?