Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

Hi Theo, I am assuming you are asking 'who is Jesus'?Emmanuel. He was perfect. For the most part he was a pacifist preacher. He fed the hungry, healed the sick, blind, and lame but on one occasion He ran the money changers out of the Temple because they had made it a den of thieves. I don't know if I understand the question you intended, but I will answer it as asked.No spirit emerges, there was no cosmic dance of stardust and dreams, In the quiet of dawn, and no whispered secrets, and no promises etched in the fabric of existence. His birth was announced to the Shepards in the fields keeping their sheep. Yes.
evidence

quote:

---

The Annals

​

BOOK

​

BOOK XV A.D. 62-65

​

By Tacitus
A Roman Historian

​

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

---

The first bolded enlarged type above.
The Roman extreme penalty was crucifixion. None is a myth I gave you a historical record of what happened. At the evidence.If you don't like it that is your problem, not mine.God Bless,

It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to infer that if I would accept Ralph I would accept a variation in the name Jesus. But I guess trying to be a bit humorous is lost on some people.The name is irrelevant to my argument. How removed from the Jesus dude of the Bible can someone be and still be the "real person" behind the myths? Why do you feel there needs to be a human model?Did I still not answer?

Tacitus was addressed and dismissed here almost 20 years ago. The rest of your post is preaching and using the Bible.
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=8000&mlist...
TACITUS (c.112CE)
​
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)
​
Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

For the existence of Jesus as "an obscure religious mystic?" Why would such a person even be necessary? If that's who Jesus really was then 95% of the gospels are fiction, and if there never was a Jesus then 100% of the gospels are fiction. That 5% hardly seems worth finagling over.Concerning evidence, no one is questioning the existence of the gospels or the NT, but the exact same gospel passages have been interpreted as saying a variety of different things, and you described them as "dodgy evidence." Some take the gospels literally, others figuratively, others fictionally, and there are multiple interpretations within each of these contexts. Agreeing on what they're evidence of seems challenging.You argue that the gospel writers would not have introduced fictions like the census if they were just making Jesus up, but Paul's epistles were written long before Luke. Separate Christian communities would have had a long time to develop and evolve and create and abandon ideas that later required reconciliation.We already know the gospels are full of fiction. The only question is, "How much?" Sorry, didn't mean for it to come across that way. I only meant that the Jesus that I believe did not exist is the one from the gospels. I don't have any particularly strong opinion about the possibility that Jesus is based upon a real person who didn't live the life described in the gospels. Maybe, maybe not. Why does it matter? You go on to answer: I wasn't aware of the Jesus Mythicists. I'm not intentionally trying to be obscure. I think we're just focused on different beliefs. I'm focused on what Biblical literalists believe, while you seem focused on the historical Jesus.--Percy

quote:

---

It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to infer that if I would accept Ralph I would accept a variation in the name Jesus. But I guess trying to be a bit humorous is lost on some people.

---

You didn’t say that you would accept “Ralph” even when I explicitly asked. And really if you would accept anything you might as well drop that part of it entirely.So, if he came from Nazareth, had parents named Joseph and Mary, founded Christianity and was crucified by the Romans (as well as being “called Jesus”) wouldn’t that be enough ? If not, why not?

Irrelevant.
If there was historical evidence for such a person then it would be reasonable to consider that he was the basis for the Jesus of the bible.
There is no one in the historical record that meets those criteria so your point is moot.

Hi Theo, You guys can dismiss any thing that that don't fit your narrative. But that don't erase it from History.I dismissed the BBT 70 years ago so what? Are you telling me that I could not take the records of the history of Taylor county that was written 1n 1940 and write a book and give a perfect account of an event happened in 1930? I have had a copy of those events since 1950.What do you think Historians do? Are you really that dumb?Tacitus did not write in English
The Annals, authored by the Roman historian and senator Tacitus, was written in Latin. This historical work covers the period from the reign of Tiberius (beginning in AD 14) to that of Nero (ending in AD 68). Tacitus meticulously chronicled the events and political complexities of the Roman Empire during the first century AD. His Latin prose style is renowned for its precision and resonance, making The Annals a significant source for understanding Roman history during that era.The English word "procurator" did not exist until the 13th century. The translators used that word but Tacitus didn't because the word Christ did not exist until the 14th century. Why did Tacitus, a Roman historian and Roman Official equal to our senators have to depend on what some one wrote as he had access to government records?Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus wrote to Emperor Trajan around AD 110 about how to handle the cristos's who would not worship the Roman Gods.

I don't think it prudent to discuss with someone with a closed mind.--Percy

Good day Sir! I have no desire to discuss this issue with you.

quote:

---

Irrelevant.
If there was historical evidence for such a person then it would be reasonable to consider that he was the basis for the Jesus of the bible.
There is no one in the historical record that meets those criteria so your point is moot.

---

Which means that your point was worthless.

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.

quote:

---

I don't think it prudent to discuss with someone with a closed mind.

---

Discussing a point with a thin-skinned nutcase who makes silly demands would seem to be imprudent, especially when he’s a shameless liar. So I guess I’m lucky that you refuse to discuss anything.

quote:

---

I agree. Is someone making that argument? Only the two criteria?

---

I never said that anyone was. The whole point was to compare with K Rose’s idea that the fact that we don’t know what the first life was like is a significant problem for evolution.However, Percy seems to think it applies to him. That’s what started this.As for the rest I already pointed out that additional reasons could change the evaluation, but Percy won’t have that.

Why is my point worthless?
This is where you are supposed your assertions with an argument and facts.

quote:

---

Why is my point worthless?

---

You were arguing that there is no point arguing for a historical Jesus who is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. But as you have conceded, my idea of a historical Jesus is sufficiently like the Jesus of the Bible.