"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

I believe that one of the most compelling arguments suggesting that Jesus may be a legend is the absence of contemporary accounts about him, both within and beyond the Bible. During the first century, Judea was a crucial province of strategic significance to the Romans, and it was extensively documented by numerous Jewish and Roman writers. We possess a large collection of their works, which contain detailed accounts of various ordinary events and the actions of other more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several unsuccessful Jewish messiahs. If the Gospels were accurate, or at least partially based on actual events, they would have provided far more exciting and noteworthy material to capture the attention of historians and writers of that time.

---

This is more an argument against the fantastical claims of the Gospels rather than the existence of Jesus itself, the topic at hand. Either way, though, it is an argument from silence. No reputable historian would consider this valid evidence that something did NOT happen, or that someone did NOT exist. Especially since we're dealing with ancient history - the fact that textual evidence of that time period is more likely to be lost to antiquity than to survive until today, makes the argument from silence even more absurd.

That, plus the fact that Jesus' ministry was only 3 years long. He was in the public eye for only 3 years, and then he was dead. That makes the likelihood that any prominent ancient historian would know of him enough to write about him, even smaller. It could have been that they heard of him, but disregarded the fantastical tales about a Jewish peasant as a crazy rumor, unworthy of their records. Regardless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when it comes to ancient history.

And on top of all this, we actually DO have a contemporary writer about Jesus in Paul, who we've already been discussing. So your argument had already been defeated before you even began. It's puzzling, your complete blindspot about him.

Sorry - this argument from silence (which isn't true because of Paul's writings) completely fails. It is insufficient basis for a belief that Jesus did not exist.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus.

---

EARTH TO BAYLORJACKET, EARTH TO BAYLORJACKET -
We have the writings of Paul.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus. In the year 93 or 94, Josephus composed his Antiquities of the Jews, which includes two passages that are controversial and are frequently used as historical evidence for Jesus. One of these passages is the Testimonium Flavianum, a brief excerpt that interrupts an otherwise bleak chapter and provides an optimistic summary of Jesus' miraculous career. It reads as follows:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. " (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

The passage in question is a clear forgery, and modern historians do not dispute that it was added by later Christian writers. The only point of contention is how much of it is fake. Despite this, some apologists continue to argue that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus, and that the account was later embellished by overzealous scribes. These apologists even go so far as to try and reconstruct the "original" Testimonium. However, there are several reasons to believe that the entire passage is an interpolation, including the use of non-Josephean vocabulary and terminology. Additionally, it does not fit in with the rest of the chapter, which speaks of a different "sad calamity" altogether. This "sad calamity" is mentioned in the following paragraph, and it is not related to the Testimonium in any way.

The most significant indication that this passage is a forgery is that it does not appear until the 4th century, despite Josephus' works being widely read and studied by scholars for over 300 years. There is no evidence that anyone had ever read or referred to the Testimonium until that time. Michael Hardwick, a Josephus scholar, claims that more than a dozen early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius, had read and commented on Josephus' works, but none of them ever mentioned the Testimonium.

---

But, even if we accept the fact that this passage was altered, Josephus references Jesus elsewhere, when he writes about James, "the brother of Jesus". There is virtually no dispute that this is what Josephus himself wrote, that it was not an interpolation.

So, your argument that because ONE of the TWO passages from Josephus that references Jesus was a forgery... that shows Jesus didn't exist?? That doesn't even make any logical sense!

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

....
And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you seriously

---

I'm far more advanced than just an "entry level" understanding, trust me. I'm in a closely related field to biology and genetics. You have no idea what you're talking about. What's more, you don't even seem to understand that it has more to do with common sense, and logic rather than deep biological or genetics knowledge. In our past debate, you seemed only to have the biology and genetics knowledge at the popular science level, the kind they spew in atheist websites. And you ran away from the last discussion. I'll be more than glad to continue that discussion, if you wish. Exactly what is "flat earth" about it?

---

I appreciate your confidence in your understanding of biology and genetics, and I would be happy to continue discussing these topics with you. However, I must stress that scientific understanding is built on evidence and rigorous study, rather than common sense or intuition alone. While these qualities can be valuable in scientific inquiry, they must be tempered by the systematic collection and analysis of data.

---

If you come across a house made from a deck of cards, you can scientifically determine the weight and molecular composition of each card, the precise center of gravity of each, the physics of their motion as they fall due to gravity, etc.....but common sense and logic is what enables you to know that the cards didn't fall and form that house by chance, that there was direction and purpose from a mind behind it.

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

If the Bible said the earth was the center of the galaxy and would you belive it over the current scientific knowledge that says it is not? If so I have nothing more to say, however if you say you know the Bible was wrong about that then here is a statement for you that presents the same exact undeniable fact about our existence. There has never been the fall of man from God made perfection thus the idea you need a christ or any other God in man's form to save you from sin. We are the last surviving species of human beings and we are only about 300,000 years old. Homoeretcus was here for 10 million years. Now Christian leaders used to be able to say homosapiens were the special human made in God image, but now we know a large percentage of humans have Neanderthal and one other human type mixed in our DNA from interpreting with them thousands of years ago. Science has closed the gap and should of we tiknk rationally that all our religious traditions are just superstions from am earlier time in history when people were uninformed and ignorant. This is not the case any longer. My former religion Christianity is no different, and as a matter of fact if you give it a deep study you will realized it was derived from the religions of its time and from its captors, just a different take.There well may be a creator however it is surely not so limited to any of man's religious ideas of such. There are mountains of real evidence that of a creator it does interfere or care about what is going on here on earth.

joseywales said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

If the Bible said the earth was the center of the galaxy and would you belive it over the current scientific knowledge that says it is not? If so I have nothing more to say, however if you say you know the Bible was wrong about that then here is a statement for you that presents the same exact undeniable fact about our existence. There has never been the fall of man from God made perfection thus the idea you need a christ or any other God in man's form to save you from sin. We are the last surviving species of human beings and we are only about 300,000 years old. Homoeretcus was here for 10 million years. Now Christian leaders used to be able to say homosapiens were the special human made in God image, but now we know a large percentage of humans have Neanderthal and one other human type mixed in our DNA from interpreting with them thousands of years ago. Science has closed the gap and should of we tiknk rationally that all our religious traditions are just superstions from am earlier time in history when people were uninformed and ignorant. This is not the case any longer. My former religion Christianity is no different, and as a matter of fact if you give it a deep study you will realized it was derived from the religions of its time and from its captors, just a different take.There well may be a creator however it is surely not so limited to any of man's religious ideas of such. There are mountains of real evidence that of a creator it does interfere or care about what is going on here on earth.

---

Let's give science something easy to prove/disprove: My grandkids are the apple of my eye. What does science say?

"I am the door". Give this one a shot.

Or

I paid an arm and a leg for eggs

Or

Pull your head out of your…. nvm

joseywales said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

If the Bible said the earth was the center of the galaxy and would you belive it over the current scientific knowledge that says it is not? If so I have nothing more to say, however if you say you know the Bible was wrong about that then here is a statement for you that presents the same exact undeniable fact about our existence. There has never been the fall of man from God made perfection thus the idea you need a christ or any other God in man's form to save you from sin. We are the last surviving species of human beings and we are only about 300,000 years old. Homoeretcus was here for 10 million years. Now Christian leaders used to be able to say homosapiens were the special human made in God image, but now we know a large percentage of humans have Neanderthal and one other human type mixed in our DNA from interpreting with them thousands of years ago. Science has closed the gap and should of we tiknk rationally that all our religious traditions are just superstions from am earlier time in history when people were uninformed and ignorant. This is not the case any longer. My former religion Christianity is no different, and as a matter of fact if you give it a deep study you will realized it was derived from the religions of its time and from its captors, just a different take.There well may be a creator however it is surely not so limited to any of man's religious ideas of such. There are mountains of real evidence that of a creator it does interfere or care about what is going on here on earth.

---

If the Bible said that you had value, would you believe it?

It is always interesting to me that anti Christians such as yourself always try to pick the low hanging fruit of literalism when that is just one of several Christian understanding of Genesis and that has been one of several Christian understandings of Genesis for centuries.

The argument that we are not in a sinful state is an interesting one that does not tend to be supported by reasoning, scientific rigor or casual observation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus.

---

EARTH TO BAYLORJACKET, EARTH TO BAYLORJACKET -
We have the writings of Paul.

---

Interestingly, I deliberately excluded Paul from the category of contemporary accounts, as his writings do not offer anything resembling a firsthand or historical depiction of Jesus. Rather, in discussing their "Christ Jesus", earlier Christian writers like Paul often present him as a mythological figure who traverses the heavens and underworld, rather than as a flesh-and-blood human being. While Paul does mention Jesus' death, he never discusses it as an actual event that occurred to a real man from Galilee who lived on Earth for a few years. Additionally, Paul does not provide any details about Jesus' life or teachings, such as the places he traveled, the miracles he performed, or the parables he told. In fact, Paul appears to deny that Jesus performed any miracles, mocking those who demand "miraculous signs" (1 Cor. 1:22-23).

Throughout his letters, Paul emphasizes that scripture serves as the source of his gospel and knowledge of Christ, rather than personal experience or observation. According to Paul, the existence of the Savior was previously unknown and hidden away in heaven until revealed by God. Therefore, Paul and other epistle writers do not refer to any specific human Jesus but rather describe Christ as now present on Earth and sent by God, similar to how the Spirit of God and Son of God are treated interchangeably in some passages.

Some Christians suggest that Paul's silence on Jesus' earthly life is due to a lack of interest or a focus on more theological concerns. However, this explanation is weak given that Paul had extended opportunities to learn about Jesus' life and likely would have shared these experiences if he considered them significant. Moreover, the New Testament writers rarely cite Jesus' teachings or examples in their arguments, instead referring to the Jewish scriptures.

One commonly suggested explanation for the absence of references to Jesus' earthly life in Paul's writings is that he simply had no interest in it. However, this argument is unconvincing and seems to be a weak rationalization within Christianity. According to the Book of Acts, Paul quickly reported for duty to the elders in Jerusalem following his conversion. However, in his own account in Galatians, Paul indicates that he waited three years before making a brief visit to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James. He did not return to Jerusalem for another fourteen years, during which time he could have had opportunities to learn more about Jesus' life.

Some scholars have argued that the New Testament writers, including Paul, simply did not have an occasion to mention Jesus' earthly life in their writings. However, this explanation is unconvincing given that there were numerous theological debates and issues within the early Christian church where Jesus' teachings or examples could have been cited, such as circumcision, salvation by grace or works, and taking supper with unbelievers. Instead, the writers of the New Testament frequently refer to the Jewish scriptures rather than to Jesus' teachings or life.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus. In the year 93 or 94, Josephus composed his Antiquities of the Jews, which includes two passages that are controversial and are frequently used as historical evidence for Jesus. One of these passages is the Testimonium Flavianum, a brief excerpt that interrupts an otherwise bleak chapter and provides an optimistic summary of Jesus' miraculous career. It reads as follows:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. " (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

The passage in question is a clear forgery, and modern historians do not dispute that it was added by later Christian writers. The only point of contention is how much of it is fake. Despite this, some apologists continue to argue that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus, and that the account was later embellished by overzealous scribes. These apologists even go so far as to try and reconstruct the "original" Testimonium. However, there are several reasons to believe that the entire passage is an interpolation, including the use of non-Josephean vocabulary and terminology. Additionally, it does not fit in with the rest of the chapter, which speaks of a different "sad calamity" altogether. This "sad calamity" is mentioned in the following paragraph, and it is not related to the Testimonium in any way.

The most significant indication that this passage is a forgery is that it does not appear until the 4th century, despite Josephus' works being widely read and studied by scholars for over 300 years. There is no evidence that anyone had ever read or referred to the Testimonium until that time. Michael Hardwick, a Josephus scholar, claims that more than a dozen early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius, had read and commented on Josephus' works, but none of them ever mentioned the Testimonium.

---

But, even if we accept the fact that this passage was altered, Josephus references Jesus elsewhere, when he writes about James, "the brother of Jesus". There is virtually no dispute that this is what Josephus himself wrote, that it was not an interpolation.

So, your argument that because ONE of the TWO passages from Josephus that references Jesus was a forgery... that shows Jesus didn't exist?? That doesn't even make any logical sense!

---

I used the first reference to Jesus, as it is the one commonly cited by Christian apologists, but excellent - I am glad we can both agree that this reference is a clear forgery. With regard to the reference to the brother of Jesus, it's worth considering the entire paragraph in question. Although some Josephus scholars dispute its authenticity (not a forgery but an interpolation like you said), let's assume for the sake of argument that Josephus did write this passage.

If we examine the rest of the paragraph, it becomes apparent that the Jesus in question is most likely Jesus, son of Damneus, who is mentioned just a few lines later. After Ananus arranges for the trial and execution of the "brother of Jesus," everyone is outraged, and King Agrippa removes Ananus from the high priesthood and installs Jesus, son of Damneus, in his place (Antiquities 20.203). This makes it plausible that Josephus was referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, when he mentioned "the brother of Jesus" earlier in the passage.

If this is the case, then there is no need to explain who this Jesus was or what "the Christ" meant, since Josephus had already identified him a few lines later. Moreover, it would clarify why the Jews were upset at the death of James and why his brother Jesus became high priest. Although it is impossible to prove conclusively without the discovery of an original Antiquities manuscript, these factors cast doubt on the traditional interpretation and suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt.

Redbrickbear: "maybe he was chastising them for certain actions or beliefs they held."

You might spend some time with the book of Job. That specific claim was addressed in some detail there.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

As for scholars, Dr Price is an accredited example, although there are other well known scholars like Dr. Richard Carrier with this viewpoint. Dr. Carrier has a BA and PhD in Ancient History from Cal Berkeley and Columbia University.

---

Dr. Price, the one in the video, the one you just said represented the "tin foil hat" side? Richard Carrier, who is widely criticized and even discredited in his circles as "fringe"? Who doesn't even hold an academic position at a university?

Here are some quotes from scholars much, much more reputable than the two crackpots you mentioned (the majority of whom are atheist or agnostic, interestingly) regarding the view that Jesus didn't exist:

Michael Grant - "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Patrick Gray - "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty."

Bart Ehrman - "...the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.."

Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end."

Joseph Hoffman - "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts."

Note, I am not trying to make an argument from authority. I just thought it'd be interesting to show what major scholars in the field think about the views held by Dr. Price and Carrier, whose views you give credence to. What's interesting is that they're not just saying that the mythicist view isn't sufficiently supported - they're pretty much saying that their view, which you give credence to, is flat out stupid.

---

Lmao - It is likely that many of the scholars mentioned would consider some of the beliefs presented in the Gospels as "stupid", although I imagine you may have a differing opinion.

While I have great admiration for most of the scholars on your list and have even purchased and read some of their works, I do not share their view that the existence of Jesus in 1st century Judea is an indisputable historical truth, except for Hoffman who entertains the possibility of Jesus as a legendary figure.

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

" I do not share their view that the existence of Jesus in 1st century Judea is an indisputable historical truth,"

How then, did the small group of Christians maintain a coherent structure and narrative sufficient to survive decades of purges and mass killings, and not only survive, but become the cornerstone of most civilized governments in the world?

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/106284/1#discussion

You seem to me as someone that prefers accuracy so, it wasn't a football forum but this same R&P board. It was a thread containing a link to a John Lenox video, Has Science Buried God. See the link above. Maybe watch the video again.

It was a thread I started and something about some of your statements on this thread didn't sit well with me. They seemed like contradictions so, went back to that thread to see why. I now know they were contradictions but don't fully understand why.

Some, like yourself, research scholars. Occasionally, I research the words of the person I'm having a discussion with. To steal from The Seinfeld Show, "is that wrong?"

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Regarding your last paragraph: are 83s postings going to change anything? TarpDuster? Coke? ATL? DC?

You didn't find offense with any of their words but only mine…. or was it yours?

Why do you suppose that's the case?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Regarding your last paragraph: are 83s postings going to change anything? TarpDuster? Coke? ATL? DC?

You didn't find offense with any of their words but only mine…. or was it yours?

Why do you suppose that's the case?

---

Yes - 83/TarpDuster/Coke/and yourself can indeed change something. Most of them have brought well thought out responses backed with some form of evidence. I am open to being wrong and have reflected and considered their points before responding.

I do not find offense to your words, but instead just do not see how it brings anything to the conversation at hand. If you have any specific questions about how/why I have updated my manner in thinking and approaching the historicity of Jesus, I am more than happy to answer. However, I really don't know what you expect in a response to previous quotes.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

As for scholars, Dr Price is an accredited example, although there are other well known scholars like Dr. Richard Carrier with this viewpoint. Dr. Carrier has a BA and PhD in Ancient History from Cal Berkeley and Columbia University.

---

Dr. Price, the one in the video, the one you just said represented the "tin foil hat" side? Richard Carrier, who is widely criticized and even discredited in his circles as "fringe"? Who doesn't even hold an academic position at a university?

Here are some quotes from scholars much, much more reputable than the two crackpots you mentioned (the majority of whom are atheist or agnostic, interestingly) regarding the view that Jesus didn't exist:

Michael Grant - "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Patrick Gray - "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty."

Bart Ehrman - "...the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.."

Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end."

Joseph Hoffman - "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts."

Note, I am not trying to make an argument from authority. I just thought it'd be interesting to show what major scholars in the field think about the views held by Dr. Price and Carrier, whose views you give credence to. What's interesting is that they're not just saying that the mythicist view isn't sufficiently supported - they're pretty much saying that their view, which you give credence to, is flat out stupid.

---

Lmao - It is likely that many of the scholars mentioned would consider some of the beliefs presented in the Gospels as "stupid", although I imagine you may have a differing opinion.

While I have great admiration for most of the scholars on your list and have even purchased and read some of their works, I do not share their view that the existence of Jesus in 1st century Judea is an indisputable historical truth, except for Hoffman who entertains the possibility of Jesus as a legendary figure.

---

Anyone who does not believe in a reality outside the physical universe must hold that the gospel narratives are stupid because they are based on a reality outside of the physical universe. The fact that these same scholars scoff at the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure while also holding the position that the gospel narratives are stupid makes his argument stronger and yours weaker. Obviously, people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead would believe that Jesus physically walked the Earth. The fact that even those who don't believe anything like Jesus being the Son of God have concluded after extensive study that you need to be "ignorant buggers" to think Jesus was mythical does not help your case in any way.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

As for scholars, Dr Price is an accredited example, although there are other well known scholars like Dr. Richard Carrier with this viewpoint. Dr. Carrier has a BA and PhD in Ancient History from Cal Berkeley and Columbia University.

---

Dr. Price, the one in the video, the one you just said represented the "tin foil hat" side? Richard Carrier, who is widely criticized and even discredited in his circles as "fringe"? Who doesn't even hold an academic position at a university?

Here are some quotes from scholars much, much more reputable than the two crackpots you mentioned (the majority of whom are atheist or agnostic, interestingly) regarding the view that Jesus didn't exist:

Michael Grant - "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Patrick Gray - "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty."

Bart Ehrman - "...the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.."

Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end."

Joseph Hoffman - "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts."

Note, I am not trying to make an argument from authority. I just thought it'd be interesting to show what major scholars in the field think about the views held by Dr. Price and Carrier, whose views you give credence to. What's interesting is that they're not just saying that the mythicist view isn't sufficiently supported - they're pretty much saying that their view, which you give credence to, is flat out stupid.

---

Lmao - It is likely that many of the scholars mentioned would consider some of the beliefs presented in the Gospels as "stupid", although I imagine you may have a differing opinion.

While I have great admiration for most of the scholars on your list and have even purchased and read some of their works, I do not share their view that the existence of Jesus in 1st century Judea is an indisputable historical truth, except for Hoffman who entertains the possibility of Jesus as a legendary figure.

---

Anyone who does not believe in a reality outside the physical universe must hold that the gospel narratives are stupid because they are based on a reality outside of the physical universe. The fact that these same scholars scoff at the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure while also holding the position that the gospel narratives are stupid makes his argument stronger and yours weaker. Obviously, people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead would believe that Jesus physically walked the Earth. The fact that even those who don't believe anything like Jesus being the Son of God have concluded after extensive study that you need to be "ignorant buggers" to think Jesus was mythical does not help your case in any way.

---

No, reality outside of the physical universe has nothing to do with what I am referring to. Most of the quoted scholars would conclude that it is unwise to believe the claims presented in the Bible's gospels due to them being historically unreliable.

I don't think this bolsters my position, I just found it ironic.

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

As for scholars, Dr Price is an accredited example, although there are other well known scholars like Dr. Richard Carrier with this viewpoint. Dr. Carrier has a BA and PhD in Ancient History from Cal Berkeley and Columbia University.

---

Dr. Price, the one in the video, the one you just said represented the "tin foil hat" side? Richard Carrier, who is widely criticized and even discredited in his circles as "fringe"? Who doesn't even hold an academic position at a university?

Here are some quotes from scholars much, much more reputable than the two crackpots you mentioned (the majority of whom are atheist or agnostic, interestingly) regarding the view that Jesus didn't exist:

Michael Grant - "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Patrick Gray - "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty."

Bart Ehrman - "...the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.."

Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end."

Joseph Hoffman - "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts."

Note, I am not trying to make an argument from authority. I just thought it'd be interesting to show what major scholars in the field think about the views held by Dr. Price and Carrier, whose views you give credence to. What's interesting is that they're not just saying that the mythicist view isn't sufficiently supported - they're pretty much saying that their view, which you give credence to, is flat out stupid.

---

Lmao - It is likely that many of the scholars mentioned would consider some of the beliefs presented in the Gospels as "stupid", although I imagine you may have a differing opinion.

While I have great admiration for most of the scholars on your list and have even purchased and read some of their works, I do not share their view that the existence of Jesus in 1st century Judea is an indisputable historical truth, except for Hoffman who entertains the possibility of Jesus as a legendary figure.

---

Anyone who does not believe in a reality outside the physical universe must hold that the gospel narratives are stupid because they are based on a reality outside of the physical universe. The fact that these same scholars scoff at the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure while also holding the position that the gospel narratives are stupid makes his argument stronger and yours weaker. Obviously, people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead would believe that Jesus physically walked the Earth. The fact that even those who don't believe anything like Jesus being the Son of God have concluded after extensive study that you need to be "ignorant buggers" to think Jesus was mythical does not help your case in any way.

---

No, reality outside of the physical universe has nothing to do with what I am referring to. Most of the quoted scholars would conclude that it is unwise to believe the claims presented in the Bible's gospels due to them being historically unreliable.

I don't think this bolsters my position, I just found it ironic.

---

When discussing Jesus and the Gospels, whether there is a reality beyond the physical is absolutely what we are discussing. It is a question that, if answered in the negative, leads directly to the conclusion that the Gospels are worthless tripe and if answered in the affirmative means that the message of the Gospels could be true.

You are right that the views of these skeptical scholars doesn't bolster the claim of a mythical Jesus. It kind of guts it.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Regarding your last paragraph: are 83s postings going to change anything? TarpDuster? Coke? ATL? DC?

You didn't find offense with any of their words but only mine…. or was it yours?

Why do you suppose that's the case?

---

Yes - 83/TarpDuster/Coke/and yourself can indeed change something. Most of them have brought well thought out responses backed with some form of evidence. I am open to being wrong and have reflected and considered their points before responding.

I do not find offense to your words, but instead just do not see how it brings anything to the conversation at hand. If you have any specific questions about how/why I have updated my manner in thinking and approaching the historicity of Jesus, I am more than happy to answer. However, I really don't know what you expect in a response to previous quotes.

---

There was a day when I could rattle off facts and stats about Joe Morgan and later, Tony Gwynn. None of that information said I had a relationship with either player. An earlier video had two atheists discussing the historicity of Jesus. Neither atheist has a relationship with Jesus. Scholars serve their purpose but, we don't build a relationship on scholarship. I posted the John Lenox video and think very highly of his offerings on the subjects of evidence and faith. I could hang on Lenox's every word and that would not give me faith in Christ-a relationship.

By me reposting of your earlier comments, it harkens back to a time when you obviously believed differently. Did evidence change? Did a relationship change? Was there a relationship there to begin with?

I've a family member who recently got divorced. In their relationship, they grew apart. He doesn't speak of a date they grew apart but rather a series of events. If you had a relationship with Christ, is that a similar experience?

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind (scholarship), soul and strength.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

What do you mean when you say you focused on eternity before?

What was happening to your ability to love others when you were a Christian? In terms of being Christian, if that's not increasing over time many things may be going on, but "Christian" isn't going to be one of them. I suspect some theology that you internalized that was, for lack of a different term, kind of out of whack.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus. In the year 93 or 94, Josephus composed his Antiquities of the Jews, which includes two passages that are controversial and are frequently used as historical evidence for Jesus. One of these passages is the Testimonium Flavianum, a brief excerpt that interrupts an otherwise bleak chapter and provides an optimistic summary of Jesus' miraculous career. It reads as follows:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. " (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

The passage in question is a clear forgery, and modern historians do not dispute that it was added by later Christian writers. The only point of contention is how much of it is fake. Despite this, some apologists continue to argue that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus, and that the account was later embellished by overzealous scribes. These apologists even go so far as to try and reconstruct the "original" Testimonium. However, there are several reasons to believe that the entire passage is an interpolation, including the use of non-Josephean vocabulary and terminology. Additionally, it does not fit in with the rest of the chapter, which speaks of a different "sad calamity" altogether. This "sad calamity" is mentioned in the following paragraph, and it is not related to the Testimonium in any way.

The most significant indication that this passage is a forgery is that it does not appear until the 4th century, despite Josephus' works being widely read and studied by scholars for over 300 years. There is no evidence that anyone had ever read or referred to the Testimonium until that time. Michael Hardwick, a Josephus scholar, claims that more than a dozen early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius, had read and commented on Josephus' works, but none of them ever mentioned the Testimonium.

---

But, even if we accept the fact that this passage was altered, Josephus references Jesus elsewhere, when he writes about James, "the brother of Jesus". There is virtually no dispute that this is what Josephus himself wrote, that it was not an interpolation.

So, your argument that because ONE of the TWO passages from Josephus that references Jesus was a forgery... that shows Jesus didn't exist?? That doesn't even make any logical sense!

---

I used the first reference to Jesus, as it is the one commonly cited by Christian apologists, but excellent - I am glad we can both agree that this reference is a clear forgery. With regard to the reference to the brother of Jesus, it's worth considering the entire paragraph in question. Although some Josephus scholars dispute its authenticity (not a forgery but an interpolation like you said), let's assume for the sake of argument that Josephus did write this passage.

If we examine the rest of the paragraph, it becomes apparent that the Jesus in question is most likely Jesus, son of Damneus, who is mentioned just a few lines later. After Ananus arranges for the trial and execution of the "brother of Jesus," everyone is outraged, and King Agrippa removes Ananus from the high priesthood and installs Jesus, son of Damneus, in his place (Antiquities 20.203). This makes it plausible that Josephus was referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, when he mentioned "the brother of Jesus" earlier in the passage.

If this is the case, then there is no need to explain who this Jesus was or what "the Christ" meant, since Josephus had already identified him a few lines later. Moreover, it would clarify why the Jews were upset at the death of James and why his brother Jesus became high priest. Although it is impossible to prove conclusively without the discovery of an original Antiquities manuscript, these factors cast doubt on the traditional interpretation and suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt.

---

YIKES. It is beyond belief the desperate lengths you go, to protect your denial.

In his book Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote:

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned."

There is only ONE Jesus in history that was EVER known as or associated with being "the Christ". And no, it was NOT Jesus son of Damneus. You do know what that title meant, don't you? And this Jesus (of Nazareth) did have a brother named James as well. Josephus wrote "the Christ" specifically to distinguish him from the other 20 people in his writings named "Jesus" (Jesus son of Gamaliel, Jesus son of Damneus, etc) for which he would write "son of ---". Your explanation is a desperate reach, and makes absolutely no syntactical sense.

You can not be this dishonest, or this stupid, can you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus. In the year 93 or 94, Josephus composed his Antiquities of the Jews, which includes two passages that are controversial and are frequently used as historical evidence for Jesus. One of these passages is the Testimonium Flavianum, a brief excerpt that interrupts an otherwise bleak chapter and provides an optimistic summary of Jesus' miraculous career. It reads as follows:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. " (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

The passage in question is a clear forgery, and modern historians do not dispute that it was added by later Christian writers. The only point of contention is how much of it is fake. Despite this, some apologists continue to argue that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus, and that the account was later embellished by overzealous scribes. These apologists even go so far as to try and reconstruct the "original" Testimonium. However, there are several reasons to believe that the entire passage is an interpolation, including the use of non-Josephean vocabulary and terminology. Additionally, it does not fit in with the rest of the chapter, which speaks of a different "sad calamity" altogether. This "sad calamity" is mentioned in the following paragraph, and it is not related to the Testimonium in any way.

The most significant indication that this passage is a forgery is that it does not appear until the 4th century, despite Josephus' works being widely read and studied by scholars for over 300 years. There is no evidence that anyone had ever read or referred to the Testimonium until that time. Michael Hardwick, a Josephus scholar, claims that more than a dozen early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius, had read and commented on Josephus' works, but none of them ever mentioned the Testimonium.

---

But, even if we accept the fact that this passage was altered, Josephus references Jesus elsewhere, when he writes about James, "the brother of Jesus". There is virtually no dispute that this is what Josephus himself wrote, that it was not an interpolation.

So, your argument that because ONE of the TWO passages from Josephus that references Jesus was a forgery... that shows Jesus didn't exist?? That doesn't even make any logical sense!

---

I used the first reference to Jesus, as it is the one commonly cited by Christian apologists, but excellent - I am glad we can both agree that this reference is a clear forgery. With regard to the reference to the brother of Jesus, it's worth considering the entire paragraph in question. Although some Josephus scholars dispute its authenticity (not a forgery but an interpolation like you said), let's assume for the sake of argument that Josephus did write this passage.

If we examine the rest of the paragraph, it becomes apparent that the Jesus in question is most likely Jesus, son of Damneus, who is mentioned just a few lines later. After Ananus arranges for the trial and execution of the "brother of Jesus," everyone is outraged, and King Agrippa removes Ananus from the high priesthood and installs Jesus, son of Damneus, in his place (Antiquities 20.203). This makes it plausible that Josephus was referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, when he mentioned "the brother of Jesus" earlier in the passage.

If this is the case, then there is no need to explain who this Jesus was or what "the Christ" meant, since Josephus had already identified him a few lines later. Moreover, it would clarify why the Jews were upset at the death of James and why his brother Jesus became high priest. Although it is impossible to prove conclusively without the discovery of an original Antiquities manuscript, these factors cast doubt on the traditional interpretation and suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt.

---

YIKES. It is beyond belief the desperate lengths you go, to protect your denial.

In his book Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote:

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned."

There is only ONE Jesus in history that was EVER known as or associated with being "the Christ". And no, it was NOT Jesus son of Damneus. You do know what that title meant, don't you? And this Jesus (of Nazareth) did have a brother named James as well. Josephus wrote "the Christ" specifically to distinguish him from the other 20 people in his writings named "Jesus" (Jesus son of Gamaliel, Jesus son of Damneus, etc) for which he would write "son of ---". Your explanation is a desperate reach, and makes absolutely no syntactical sense.

You can not be this dishonest, or this stupid, can you?

---

It is possible for people to have different interpretations of a text, and it is not helpful or productive to resort to personal attacks. If you disagree with my interpretation, that's fine, but let's discuss the reasoning behind our respective views in a respectful and constructive manner.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

What do you mean when you say you focused on eternity before?

What was happening to your ability to love others when you were a Christian? In terms of being Christian, if that's not increasing over time many things may be going on, but "Christian" isn't going to be one of them. I suspect some theology that you internalized that was, for lack of a different term, kind of out of whack.

---

Focusing on eternity is merely referring to the acts of placing greater emphasis on spiritual growth, developing a relationship with God, or pursuing actions that have eternal significance (things like the great commission).

As for loving others, yes the teachings of Christianity have indeed helped me love others and indeed my love has expanded over time. What has expanded and grown since starting on the deconstruction process is my ability to love and accept those in the LGBTQ+ community. Now, I know there are some incredible affirming churches out there, you may be in one yourself, but this was not my personal case.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

As for scholars, Dr Price is an accredited example, although there are other well known scholars like Dr. Richard Carrier with this viewpoint. Dr. Carrier has a BA and PhD in Ancient History from Cal Berkeley and Columbia University.

---

Dr. Price, the one in the video, the one you just said represented the "tin foil hat" side? Richard Carrier, who is widely criticized and even discredited in his circles as "fringe"? Who doesn't even hold an academic position at a university?

Here are some quotes from scholars much, much more reputable than the two crackpots you mentioned (the majority of whom are atheist or agnostic, interestingly) regarding the view that Jesus didn't exist:

Michael Grant - "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Patrick Gray - "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty."

Bart Ehrman - "...the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.."

Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end."

Joseph Hoffman - "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts."

Note, I am not trying to make an argument from authority. I just thought it'd be interesting to show what major scholars in the field think about the views held by Dr. Price and Carrier, whose views you give credence to. What's interesting is that they're not just saying that the mythicist view isn't sufficiently supported - they're pretty much saying that their view, which you give credence to, is flat out stupid.

---

Lmao - It is likely that many of the scholars mentioned would consider some of the beliefs presented in the Gospels as "stupid", although I imagine you may have a differing opinion.

While I have great admiration for most of the scholars on your list and have even purchased and read some of their works, I do not share their view that the existence of Jesus in 1st century Judea is an indisputable historical truth, except for Hoffman who entertains the possibility of Jesus as a legendary figure.

---

You're laughing your a** off? But...shouldn't you be more concerned with how these scholars you admire are laughing their a** off at your view?

The list isn't even CLOSE to being exhaustive. Virtually every scholar, Christian or non-Christian, agrees. But if I were to include only Christians you would simply dismiss them as biased and religiously incentivized to affirm Jesus' historicity. I specifically mentioned only a handful of scholars who are atheists and agnostics to show that EVEN WITH those who doubt Jesus' divinity, the threshold for believing he was a real person is easily reached. They have no religious incentive to affirm Jesus' historicity. If anything, they would be more prone to being incentivized to NOT affirm the historicity. This shows that there just isn't room for doubt among experts in the field, lest you risk being laughed at by your colleagues.

If you don't share their view that Jesus' existence is indisputable, then it's safe to say that according to these guys, you are foolish. And although Hoffman did say there was a "very slight" chance Jesus didn't actually exist, he says clearly the abundant evidence for his existence should override that thought. Obviously, the evidence has NOT overridden the thought for you. That's why I've been curious as to your thought process - what evidence are YOU looking at, and why does it sway you? I have to say, that so far, your reasons are just so grossly inadequate, that it is puzzling.