One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Liar! I watched the video, It says NOTHING about those attributes. He might yet believe that other stuff, but he certainly doesn't say that in the video.

Why would you automatically assume that I am lying? Ehrman accepts that there was a man named Jesus from Nazareth, the brother of James, who was believed to be the Messiah by his followers and who was executed by the Romans because Ehrman accepts the writings of Paul in Galatians as historical (as attested to by him in the video I posted). I apologize for the confusion; I didn’t realize I’d have to connect the dots for you. Ehrman is not your friend on this issue.

---

“With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.”- Bart Ehrman, Huffington Post, March 20, 2012

---

Yes, he has said that and he got his Scholarly butt burnt for saying it too.

By whom? More patent attorneys and bloggers?

His reputation was well shredded by a rebuttal book. He is not acting "scholarly" at all in clinging to the "real jesus" claim. A REAL scholar understands the positions of his detractors and counters them with evidence. Erman can't or won't do this.

He presents numerous lines of evidence. Actually all of the real scholars on this matter “cling” to the real Jesus claim because his existence is a historical fact just like Abraham Lincoln’s.

Marco polo does not have religious followers who think he is god. If he did, then the fact that he claimed he saw dragons would be most pertinent. A person whose brain wasn't irretrievable addled by too much sky daddy imaginations would have understood that.

That’s amusing, so it’s not about the claim but it is about who makes the claim and what that person believes about religion? That’s logically fallacious. It is no wonder you hold to such a fringe view. I am sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would accept the historicity of the Holocaust if the Nazis were killing anyone other than Jews who believed in Yahweh; sound familiar?

We know about gladiators by other sources in addition to Roman scholars.

Such as?

Yes, it is absurd that you think that's what was meant by contemporary source.

Fail.

Contemporary- (adj)- of about the same age or date. (Webster’s)

All of the bible authors are Pseudepigraphic authors.

According to whom?

There is no evidence that any of them are the least bit historical.

According to whom?

That is not unlike saying Starwars [sic] was real because Chewbacca, Luke, and Princess Leia were there and they witnessed it.

No, it’s like saying the American Revolution was real because James Madison, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson witnessed it.

Give up SW, the whole thing is just a stupid fairytale.

Star Wars?

A ridiculous comment coming from one of the sheep who unquestioningly accepts every bit of bullshit in an absurd old book. But, you should be used to looking ridiculous by now.

Exactly what a mindless foot soldier would say, "Blah blah Jesus never existed blah blah evolution blah blah rational blah blah myth blah blah storybook blah blah fairy tales blah blah"...Stay in formation like a good boy…atheists march…..march….march…..

Yes, it is really ridiculous that sane rational people keep "goose stepping" towards reality and rational thinking. It must amaze SW that we don't bell curve towards Mystical magic, psychotic rituals, and psychic communication with beings in imaginary dimensions.

This is great! You’re proving my point beautifully by regurgitating the same tired lines every other atheist does. “Blah blah rational blah invisible blah sky daddy blah blah fairy tale blah ancient book blah blah rational blah evidence blah blah…” Good little boy….march…march….march….