Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

Please provide source for the quotes you are using.

quote:

---

We're left with being asked to trust what religious believers say, and I trust none of them from any religion. I see no difference in your protestations of the truth of Christianity than I do in a Jew's claim of the truth of Judaism or a Muslim's claim of the truth of Islam and so on.

---

You do know that there are Christians and Jewish individuals who feel that there was no Adam, Noah, Joshua ben Nun, no creation, no flood, no Tower of Babel, etc. but who are religious?I personally know of atheists who accept the historicity of Abraham while I also know actual actual religious people who do not accept Abraham's existence.I was recently (5 to 6 years ago) in a conversation with an athiest (he was somebody I got acquainted with due to our penchant for political conversations, in public, he happened to be the chairperson of the Democratic party in a Colorado county), and I told him that 80% of fundamentalist Christian preachers "KNOW" that Adam did not exist, plus they "KNOW" the creation & Tower of Babel & flood did not happen, albeit they dont talk openly about it.His best friend happened to be a Preacher, so he asked him. His friend said I don't know what I was talking about, however.There are also Christians who don't feel Jesus existed as a biological man, and there are even Christians who dont feel Jesus ever existed in any metaphysical way.There are Jewish individuals who will deny that even Moses lived, and they attend synagogue.For that matter:There are Christians who regularly attend Jewish synagogue, and Jewish individuals who regularly attend Christian church services.There are even atheists who attend services. I know of several.(I actually think your confusing this historical Jesus issue with a religious issue is the giant boner of this whole debate, and that says a lot when you are in a debate where Theodoric has posted over 80 times.)

quote:

---

Please provide source for the quotes you are using.

---

How the hell can somebody, who has literally posted a gazillion times in a thread, be so clueless about the few counter-posts?Go see posts 477 to 480.HINT - It is a set of posts that are perfectly divided, from your post 496, by the entire page 33 (posts 481-495), one of the few times somebody other than you has actually posted.It is the subject of an exchange betweeen Percy and myself.(Why are we never making forward progress? This is basic shit. Real simple stuff)

quote:

---

How is any of this evidence for the historical Jesus?
​
LamarkNewAge in Message 485 writes:
​"...Romans 1:1-4 was sayings about Jesus' biology..."
​
You mean ancestry?

---

The Jesus Myther theory requires a non biological-entity Jesus.Call it the last stand of the "Jesus did not exist" crowd.It is actually a fairly respectable reading of Paul's texts (minus the small number of really difficult passages where he seems to be referencing a human Jesus), and much of what early Christians are quoted as saying.Early Christians often are 99% describing a non-earthly and/or non-flesh Jesus.So, no I did not glitch when I said, "...Jesus' biology...".Let me know if you still do not understand whay I specifically noticed Carrier was rightly thinking about whether the Roman Christian community felt Jesus was a biological man or not.

quote:

---

We're left with being asked to trust what religious believers say, and I trust none of them from any religion. I see no difference in your protestations of the truth of Christianity than I do in a Jew's claim of the truth of Judaism or a Muslim's claim of the truth of Islam and so on.

---

No you aren't.lol.You are batting heads with historians, and historians alone.You have a problem with secular historians and their methodology.That is the issue.(See post 497 for more of what comes to my mind, on this paragraph of yours)

quote:

---

It was argued earlier that even if the Jesus of faith didn't exist (the miraculous Jesus, the resurrected Jesus, the God Jesus), Paul at least based his Jesus of faith upon an actual person, the historical Jesus, who was quite possibly just an obscure mystic who did not live the life described in the gospels, or at least none of the miraculous things. Or maybe he was a composite.
​
If the real Jesus did none of the non-miraculous things written of him, such as the baptism by John or the overturning of the tables at the temple or the Sermon on the Mount, then he's not really a historical Jesus. He's just a guy Paul made up stories about. Early Christian communities made up more stories providing more detail that were based upon Paul's sparse commentaries.
​
--Percy

---

The Jesus Myther historians are not arguing against what you just set-up.Richar Carrier said this:

quote:

---

It’s worth pointing out that “1 in 200” is vastly better odds than any supernatural explanation can claim (those come with prior odds of millions to one against even at our most charitable: see Naturalism Is Not an Axiom of the Sciences but a Conclusion of Them and The Argument from Specified Complexity against Supernaturalism), so interpolation is always more likely than “Jesus was a resurrected miracle-working demigod,” for example. But I am not ever testing mythicism against that hypothesis. I only consider non-supernatural theories of historicity as at all worth considering and thus comparing against mythicism.

---

He also makes the point, elsewhere, that one should always argue against your opponent's stronger points, and never argue against strawmen.Reading your posts, it seems - to me - you probably are not deliberately arguing against strawmen, but the issue of avoiding strawman arguments is another angle that needs to be considered.Carrier & Price have multiple reasons for not considering supernatural theories, when debating the Jesus of history.It is simply not within the scope of the historical debate. I think I know exactly what they are thinking (I think I feel like them), but you & others might not "feel it".​

We might as well spend the next 1000 posts on understanding why Romans 1:1-4 matters.

quote:

---

You mean ancestry?
​
Obviously you see something in Romans and in the writings of Carrier and Price that Theodoric and I do not see. My own view is that you can build a stack of baseless opinions to the moon and it would mean less than one iota of actual historical evidence. The supposed greatest figure in history somehow managed to escape any mention at all by historians that goes beyond "reports say there was a guy who had followers."

---

Yes, you and Theodoric have indeed completely, totally, utterly failed to understand why Romans 1:1-4 is so highly relevant to the Jesus (is a) Myth theory.Yes, you and Theodoric simply have no clue why Carrier & Price are rightly concerned about what the opinions of the Roman Christians were (about what Jesus was, exactly) in c. 57 CE.(I wonder if I am getting too far ahead, by mentioning Carrier is certain Paul penned the text of Romans 1:1-4, while Price does not)(I don't know where to even start)Welcome to the FIRST SEVERAL VERSES OF ROMANS thread......ladies and gentlemen!

Sorry, I have no idea what you're on about. I'll respond to posts I understand that address the topic.--Percy

So, I get to try an attempt to figure out where to start, yet again...Do you understand, in any way, why I feel you have a problem with the methodology of secular historians?

Quote mining is very poor form. Misrepresenting arguments is poor form. Carrier is a mythicist. Casting any doubt on that us a lie.
All irrelevant any way. What Carrier or Price write is not evidence. Do you have any evidence?

You are amounting to little more than a disruptive dead-end, when you refuse to engage any discussion.Percy at least quoted Romans 1:1-4

quote:

---

Romans 1: 1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

Percy said enough to show us that his misunderstood what the issue was, to Jesus Mythers HERE:

quote:

---

who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David

---

Percy thought Carrier was concerned about the Christian community's views regarding Davidic ancestry.Carrier was actually concerned about the "earthly life" part.Right, Theodoric?Percy later (albeit in only one spot) made the bizarre comment that the JESUS NEVER EXISTED debate concerned NOT whether Jesus existed, but only concerning issues surrounding the supernatural & the miraculous stories in the Gospels. He referenced events at the Baptism (and other Gospel stories he felt contained miracles).It would be quote mining to say Percy feels the Jesus Mythers are simply responding to supernatural miracles, but his words, at times, seem to make one wonder, if parts of certain posts are read in isolation.I doubt you will respond to anything, but here is a question:You agree that Jesus Mythers are not in any way, shape, or form concerned about what religious Christians think about miracles & the supernatural, but the issue is whether Jesus, brother of James, son of Joseph (or alternatively "son of Pantera" as Celsus' Jew & the Talmud relate) existed at all?

So when are you going to address the topic?

I don't think you're accurately representing what people have said.As I said before, I'll respond to any posts from you that I understand and that are on-topic.--Percy

I am trying to establish what it is we are debating.Post 504 was attempt #1Here is my attempt 2.0Percy made this comment:

quote:

---

(post 495)

​

If the real Jesus did none of the non-miraculous things written of him, such as the baptism by John or the overturning of the tables at the temple or the Sermon on the Mount, then he's not really a historical Jesus.

---

Percy said here (only here, and I grant his Jesus Myth arguments were more consistent with Carrier/Price in most places) that the issue is whether Jesus actually committed supernatural feats (?) (though the Sermon On The Mount was absent miracles and infact was almost materialistic/non spiritual in its many/most of Jesus' comments), and the issue is not whether Jesus ever existed or not.He, added this, to the work load of Jesus Myther historians, earlier in post 495

quote:

---

We're left with being asked to trust what religious believers say, and I trust none of them from any religion.

---

I thought it was a glaring inaccuracy that does not capture the spirit of the Jesus Myther thesis at all. In neither word nor deed do Jesus Mythers ever claim the argument is anything other than a sound historical argument which finds that Jesus never existed and was in fact never believed to have existed as a man, by the early Christian communities during the time up to the correspondence of Paul, reflected in his extant Epistles.Correct?The Jesus Myther argument considered the 7 authentic letters of Paul to be especially pertinent to the case that Jesus was never believed to have existed as a man up until the time just before the writing of the first Gospel - generally/strongly taken to be the Gospel of Mark.Correct?The most relevant epistles are:Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians
1 Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon (slightly less certain, per Carrier)Correct?So, let us begin...Percy errs when he seems to say c57 CE Christians being talked to by Paul as if he existed as a biological man is not the big issue to Robert M Price and Richard Carrier?

quote:

---

You mean [to say Carrier is concerned about Jesus'] ancestry?
​
Obviously you see something in Romans and in the writings of Carrier and Price that Theodoric and I do not see.
​....
​
​--Percy

---

Percy seems to miss the point, perhaps?

quote:

---

I don't think you're accurately representing what people have said.
​
As I said before, I'll respond to any posts from you that I understand and that are on-topic.
​
--Percy

---

I asked you if you understand why I feel you have a problem with the methodology historians use?You ignored that one.So TAKE 2:Have you ever complained about historian's methods?You cant ignore that one, can you?Surely no...

It often feels like your understanding of what people say is at serious odds with what they actually said.--Percy

This is a substantial misunderstanding of what you just quoted me saying. I don't know who the "Jesus Mythers" are. If that's Carrier and Price then, as I said earlier, I'm not familiar with them and was certainly not trying to capture their spirit. Again, I've heard the names of Carrier and Price and that's it. I have no idea what their "big issue" is and so could never have commented on it. Your understanding of what people are saying often does not match what they are actually saying.--Percy