BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Were any of them a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who spoke directly with those disciples who were first hand eyewitnesses, and who wrote letters within a decade of Jesus' death and resurrection which affirmed those things, like the apostle Paul?

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

there is a big difference in believing and witnessing.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Were any of them a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who spoke directly with those disciples who were first hand eyewitnesses, and who wrote letters within a decade of Jesus' death and resurrection which affirmed those things, like the apostle Paul?

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

Martyrdom for what you believe is a strong indicator that you truly believe. However, martyrdom for something that you know firsthand to be true, is perhaps the strongest indicator that what you are saying IS true. Paul had first hand knowledge of his own meeting with Jesus and his conversion. But Paul also was in as good a position to know what the disciples witnessed directly, having had "dinner table" conversations with them. So if we were to assume Paul did not already know of Jesus or his crucifixion before he met the disciples (a good argument can be made that he did), still, Paul would have very, very likely known the veracity of the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, death, and resurrection through his contact with the disciples.

So, going back to the original point, the reason for saying all this - you had asked for historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion. I asked why you discount the bible as evidence, when we have the undisputed letters of Paul that give historical attestation to those facts, in a manner that really, is unmatched by anything we have from ancient history - written within a decade of events, contact with first hand witnesses, etc. Do you still now say that Paul's testimony is NOT acceptable as historical evidence for what you asked? Isn't it highly likely that Jesus existed and was crucified, given what we have from Paul?

You know it's highly likely. You're just not being sincere, and you're being intentionally obtuse about it.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Okay, touche. I did say nobody so fair enough. But it is not sersiouly considered position outside of a few randoms.

---

I find it so strange, how some people can think that scholars 2000 years after the event are in better postion to determine if Jesus truly existed, than those living within decades of Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Okay, touche. I did say nobody so fair enough. But it is not sersiouly considered position outside of a few randoms.

---

I find it so strange, how some people can think that scholars 2000 years after the event are in better postion to determine if Jesus truly existed, than those living within decades of Jesus.

---

an excuse is a powerful thing

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Were any of them a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who spoke directly with those disciples who were first hand eyewitnesses, and who wrote letters within a decade of Jesus' death and resurrection which affirmed those things, like the apostle Paul?

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

Martyrdom for what you believe is a strong indicator that you truly believe. However, martyrdom for something that you know firsthand to be true, is perhaps the strongest indicator that what you are saying IS true. Paul had first hand knowledge of his own meeting with Jesus and his conversion. But Paul also was in as good a position to know what the disciples witnessed directly, having had "dinner table" conversations with them. So if we were to assume Paul did not already know of Jesus or his crucifixion before he met the disciples (a good argument can be made that he did), still, Paul would have very, very likely known the veracity of the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, death, and resurrection through his contact with the disciples.

So, going back to the original point, the reason for saying all this - you had asked for historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion. I asked why you discount the bible as evidence, when we have the undisputed letters of Paul that give historical attestation to those facts, in a manner that really, is unmatched by anything we have from ancient history - written within a decade of events, contact with first hand witnesses, etc. Do you still now say that Paul's testimony is NOT acceptable as historical evidence for what you asked? Isn't it highly likely that Jesus existed and was crucified, given what we have from Paul?

You know it's highly likely. You're just not being sincere, and you're being intentionally obtuse about it.

---

You are picking an argument just for arguments sake - as I have said extensively before, I personally believe the most probable scenario is a literal Jesus existed.

I will grant that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, that he truly believed he saw Jesus, and so did the disciples…. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the OP as it has nothing to do with why I do not believe in a God.

If this is your best evidence (Paul wrote some letters because he had a revelation/experience) for God, let's just move on.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

As a baseline assumption that he was indeed a 1st Century person: I think he was a Jewish teacher who strongly believed and taught Apocalyptic teachings found late in the Old Testament that the Kingdom of God was near.

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

Beyond that, I don't know. During the decades of Jesus' life passed down orally before being committed to ink, it is impossible to know what was mythified/added as legend, and what was history.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

Then we get to verses 10 and 11 of the 1st Chapter, which bears witness:

10 And immediately, coming up [c]from the water, He saw the heavens [d]parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. 11 Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Chapter 2:28--Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. (Here he says so Himself.)

I gotta be honest with you. I am only two Chapters into Mark with you at this point and the text reports that Jesus is God and the text reports that Jesus says He is Lord of the Sabbath (God).

It appears you have not read through the Gospels very well.

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

Pointing out gaps in the linkage isn't slander.

God of the gaps [itself nothing more than "scientist" attempt to slander anyone pointing out the weakness of their positions] is still nothing more than your poor assessment.

When anyone can only explain and support with evidence 20% of a supposition, taking the position that the remaining 80% could be filled by anything isn't an assertion of religion. It is solid reasoning.

100 boxes. You identify what is inside 20 of them but cannot identify the contents of the remaining 80 boxes. Pointing out that those 80 boxes might contain anything capable of fitting within the boxes isn't some intellectual stretch.

The fact that you attack is prima facia proof of your sensitivity. Intellectual Weakness.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

---

Ah, yes, my apologies, I forgot that only certified experts are allowed to have opinions

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

---

Ah, yes, my apologies, I forgot that only certified experts are allowed to have opinions

---

The nature of authority requires you to appeal or cite to something other than your own best guess. So, yeah, you need to be able to cite to some authority since you are not one yourself.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

---

Desire does not equal authority???

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

---

Ah, yes, my apologies, I forgot that only certified experts are allowed to have opinions

---

The nature of authority requires you to appeal or cite to something other than your own best guess. So, yeah, you need to be able to cite to some authority since you are not one yourself.

---

And your authority is?

Not asking sarcastically, for all I know, you may be a New Testament scholar.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

---

Ah, yes, my apologies, I forgot that only certified experts are allowed to have opinions

---

The nature of authority requires you to appeal or cite to something other than your own best guess. So, yeah, you need to be able to cite to some authority since you are not one yourself.

---

And your authority is?

Not asking sarcastically, for all I know, you may be a New Testament scholar.

---

The Bible. And specifically, the Book of Mark, which in your opinion is the best of the Gospels for the argument on this thread. So, I guess my authority is your reference / source.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Were any of them a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who spoke directly with those disciples who were first hand eyewitnesses, and who wrote letters within a decade of Jesus' death and resurrection which affirmed those things, like the apostle Paul?

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

It is certainly true that there are many martyrs in history. Finding examples of people who voluntarily gave their lives for an idea which they knew to be false may prove considerably more difficult.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

---

Ah, yes, my apologies, I forgot that only certified experts are allowed to have opinions

---

The nature of authority requires you to appeal or cite to something other than your own best guess. So, yeah, you need to be able to cite to some authority since you are not one yourself.

---

And your authority is?

Not asking sarcastically, for all I know, you may be a New Testament scholar.

---

The Bible. And specifically, the Book of Mark, which in your opinion is the best of the Gospels for the argument on this thread. So, I guess my authority is your reference / source.

---

A book is considered an authority if it is widely recognized as a credible and reliable source of information on a particular topic. A major contributor to this is the credibility of the author writing the book.

In the case of the Gospel of Mark, the vast majority of scholars (both Christian and secular) agree that the author of Mark is unknown. We can speculate, but at the end of the day - we do not know.

In this case, how do you personally know that the Gospel of Mark is an authority on the topic of the life of Jesus?

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Were any of them a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who spoke directly with those disciples who were first hand eyewitnesses, and who wrote letters within a decade of Jesus' death and resurrection which affirmed those things, like the apostle Paul?

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

Martyrdom for what you believe is a strong indicator that you truly believe. However, martyrdom for something that you know firsthand to be true, is perhaps the strongest indicator that what you are saying IS true. Paul had first hand knowledge of his own meeting with Jesus and his conversion. But Paul also was in as good a position to know what the disciples witnessed directly, having had "dinner table" conversations with them. So if we were to assume Paul did not already know of Jesus or his crucifixion before he met the disciples (a good argument can be made that he did), still, Paul would have very, very likely known the veracity of the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, death, and resurrection through his contact with the disciples.

So, going back to the original point, the reason for saying all this - you had asked for historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion. I asked why you discount the bible as evidence, when we have the undisputed letters of Paul that give historical attestation to those facts, in a manner that really, is unmatched by anything we have from ancient history - written within a decade of events, contact with first hand witnesses, etc. Do you still now say that Paul's testimony is NOT acceptable as historical evidence for what you asked? Isn't it highly likely that Jesus existed and was crucified, given what we have from Paul?

You know it's highly likely. You're just not being sincere, and you're being intentionally obtuse about it.

---

You are picking an argument just for arguments sake - as I have said extensively before, I personally believe the most probable scenario is a literal Jesus existed.

I will grant that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, that he truly believed he saw Jesus, and so did the disciples…. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the OP as it has nothing to do with why I do not believe in a God.

If this is your best evidence (Paul wrote some letters because he had a revelation/experience) for God, let's just move on.

---

No, you lost track of the discussion - you said that you believed it more probable than not that Jesus was a real figure, but then you backtracked and said you weren't confident in that assertion, and even seemed to suggest that those who believe Jesus was a myth had equal validity to their argument.

So, I am pointing out the exceptional historical value of undisputed documents from Paul, a contemporaneous figure who had direct contact with first-hand eyewitnesses regarding the facts in question here, whose writings undoubtedly affirm the historical Jesus. To any intellectually honest person, this should heavily, heavily outweigh any current-day speculation from scholars about Jesus being a myth, made from the comforts of their university offices 2000 years after the fact.

Don't you agree?

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Were any of them a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who spoke directly with those disciples who were first hand eyewitnesses, and who wrote letters within a decade of Jesus' death and resurrection which affirmed those things, like the apostle Paul?

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did. %A0

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

It is certainly true that there are many martyrs in history. Finding examples of people who voluntarily gave their lives for an idea which they knew to be false may prove considerably more difficult.

---

I 100% agree with you - apologies if I was not clear in my earlier post. I was not insinuating that Paul made up a story, but likely truly believed that he saw Jesus.

Now, if he actually did or not is what I was referring to. People have experiences/visions/hallucinations all the time, and truly believe they saw something - but it does not make it real.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

See above. We don't get to the third Chapter and Jesus is already claiming to be God.

You don't have any authority to dispute Christ's claims or Mark's claims to be God. Stop spreading your error to others.

---

Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. This is not some conspiracy theory I am spreading, read the book for yourself.

Please show me one location where Jesus himself claims to be God in Mark.

---

Chapter 2

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

What do you think the Lord of The Sabbath is? He is claiming His divine authority as author and Lord of the day He set apart.

---

So the "Son of Man" is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Just curious, have you taken time to look into this reference?

Ezekiel (among others) was also referred to as the Son of Man by God himself. Is Ezekial God?

---

Did he have the Son of God title appropriated to him as well? Did any Jewish authorities accuse him of blasphemy for saying he was divine?

Did Ezekiel claim to be Lord over the Sabbath? The answer is no.

---

You are over thinking this. Jesus objectively behaves incredibly different in Mark compared to John. My original point is I personally believe that Jesus (if he was a real 1st century man) was closer to how he was presented in Mark than John. That's it.

I do not think Mark perfectly records Jesus' life or sayings, so discussing how to best interpret "Lord of the Sabbath" is meaningless, as he probably didn't even say it.

---

You have no authority for your claim.

---

Ah, yes, my apologies, I forgot that only certified experts are allowed to have opinions

---

The nature of authority requires you to appeal or cite to something other than your own best guess. So, yeah, you need to be able to cite to some authority since you are not one yourself.

---

And your authority is?

Not asking sarcastically, for all I know, you may be a New Testament scholar.

---

The Bible. And specifically, the Book of Mark, which in your opinion is the best of the Gospels for the argument on this thread. So, I guess my authority is your reference / source.

---

In this case, how do you personally know that the Gospel of Mark is an authority on the topic of the life of Jesus?

---

You are the one who appealed to Mark. You cannot now disclaim its use as a reliable authority.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christians.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

Were any of them a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who spoke directly with those disciples who were first hand eyewitnesses, and who wrote letters within a decade of Jesus' death and resurrection which affirmed those things, like the apostle Paul?

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

Martyrdom for what you believe is a strong indicator that you truly believe. However, martyrdom for something that you know firsthand to be true, is perhaps the strongest indicator that what you are saying IS true. Paul had first hand knowledge of his own meeting with Jesus and his conversion. But Paul also was in as good a position to know what the disciples witnessed directly, having had "dinner table" conversations with them. So if we were to assume Paul did not already know of Jesus or his crucifixion before he met the disciples (a good argument can be made that he did), still, Paul would have very, very likely known the veracity of the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, death, and resurrection through his contact with the disciples.

So, going back to the original point, the reason for saying all this - you had asked for historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion. I asked why you discount the bible as evidence, when we have the undisputed letters of Paul that give historical attestation to those facts, in a manner that really, is unmatched by anything we have from ancient history - written within a decade of events, contact with first hand witnesses, etc. Do you still now say that Paul's testimony is NOT acceptable as historical evidence for what you asked? Isn't it highly likely that Jesus existed and was crucified, given what we have from Paul?

You know it's highly likely. You're just not being sincere, and you're being intentionally obtuse about it.

---

You are picking an argument just for arguments sake - as I have said extensively before, I personally believe the most probable scenario is a literal Jesus existed.

I will grant that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, that he truly believed he saw Jesus, and so did the disciples%85. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the OP as it has nothing to do with why I do not believe in a God.

If this is your best evidence (Paul wrote some letters because he had a revelation/experience) for God, let's just move on.

---

No, you lost track of the discussion - you said that you believed it more probable than not that Jesus was a real figure, but then you backtracked and said you weren't confident in that assertion, and even seemed to suggest that those who believe Jesus was a myth had equal validity to their argument.

So, I am pointing out the exceptional historical value of undisputed documents from Paul, a contemporaneous figure who had direct contact with first-hand eyewitnesses regarding the facts in question here, whose writings undoubtedly affirm the historical Jesus. To any intellectually honest person, this should heavily, heavily outweigh any current-day speculation from scholars about Jesus being a myth, made from the comforts of their university offices 2000 years after the fact.

Don't you agree?

---

I did not backtrack - I will again assert that I believe it is more probable than not that Jesus was a real person, but am not confident in that assertion. I am not able to put a numerical value to it, but for the sake of the conversation, let's say I personally think it's ~70% likely that Jesus existed literally. That is more probable than not, without being confident (The statistician in me marks anything under 95% as not confident)

While the undisputed documents from Paul are an important source of information about the historical Jesus, they are not the only source, and must be evaluated in the context of the broader historical record. It's important to recognize that scholars who question the historicity of Jesus are not necessarily engaging in "speculation" or denying the value of the historical record. Rather, they are engaging in critical analysis and evaluation of the available evidence, using established historical methods and standards to assess the reliability of the sources.