Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[EgoDeath]

Bolded by me.

No evidence? Just a hunch? Right.

I certainly think it's possible that Jesus existed, but when we start saying things like "it's probably true," because "it just sort of seems to make sense," - or any other variation of that - we're getting into really murky waters. So, hey, if you're comfortable with viewing history in that way, that's up to you, but what I'm saying is, in reality, there's no good reason to think Jesus was "probably real."

At best, he might've been. Maybe. I still think the evidence that does exist is truly lackluster and doesn't do much to convince me. If anything, maybe even the "historical" writings about Jesus were just an urban legend of the Bronze Age.

All in all, I really don't care all that much. It makes no difference in my life whether or not Jesus was real and even if he was, it does nothing to prove the mythological claims found in the Bible.

Again, I never claimed that Jesus was 'probably real'.

Boru

I'm aware. I simply want to point out, not even necessarily to you, that "it isn't terribly farfetched" is worlds away from "he was probably real."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Again, I never claimed that Jesus was 'probably real'.

Boru

I'm aware. I simply want to point out, not even necessarily to you, that "it isn't terribly farfetched" is worlds away from "he was probably real."

I don't think anyone is equating the two.

Boru

[EgoDeath]

I'm aware. I simply want to point out, not even necessarily to you, that "it isn't terribly farfetched" is worlds away from "he was probably real."

I don't think anyone is equating the two.

Boru

Unfortunately, they are.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Josephus is not a first hand account of anything.

Never said he was a first hand account. But he is the only Roman historian writing about that entire period in 1st century Palestine, that we have, and even if you exclude the disputed portion, you still have a reference to the death of James, Jesus brother. Unless non historical people have literal brothers, this indicates Jesus was a historical person. Trying to due away with Josephus would leave a significant gap for that entire period, pretty much all we have about Pilates life is found in Josephus, etc..

What we do have a first hand account of is someone (Paul) who met both his brother, and his disciples, in fact having various disputes with them.

Christ, you're worse off than I thought.  

"Paul" isn't any more a real person than jesus was, lol.  You referred to a character in a work of fiction as a firsthand account of another character in the same work of fiction....

I’ll wait while you try and take these two pieces  and make a more compelling argument for a-historicity based on them without verging on the credulous

“Jesus" wrote nothing.

No but he said of bunch of things, attested to in multiple writings, credited to him.

Hercules and zues said a bunch of things too, also "well attested."

No the gospels were the prevalent and oldest texts held by the wide variety of Christians way before three hundred AD, it’s a result of how commonly shared they were, that they were canonized.

This is so far off from fact and irrelevant to the rise of christianity that I refuse to go down the rabbit hole.  Let's take them in order from the top.  We'll get here eventually, maybe.


You have no firsthand accounts.  You are trying to certify mythology by referring to folklore.

[Acrobat]

Never said he was a first hand account. But he is the only Roman historian writing about that entire period in 1st century Palestine, that we have, and even if you exclude the disputed portion, you still have a reference to the death of James, Jesus brother. Unless non historical people have literal brothers, this indicates Jesus was a historical person. Trying to due away with Josephus would leave a significant gap for that entire period, pretty much all we have about Pilates life is found in Josephus, etc..

What we do have a first hand account of is someone (Paul) who met both his brother, and his disciples, in fact having various disputes with them.

Christ, you're worse off than I thought.  

"Paul" isn't any more a real person than jesus was, lol.  You referred to a character in a work of fiction as a firsthand account of another character in the same work of fiction....

I’ll wait while you try and take these two pieces  and make a more compelling argument for a-historicity based on them without verging on the credulous


No but he said of bunch of things, attested to in multiple writings, credited to him.

Hercules and zues said a bunch of things too, also "well attested."

No the gospels were the prevalent and oldest texts held by the wide variety of Christians way before three hundred AD, it’s a result of how commonly shared they were, that they were canonized.

This is so far off from fact and irrelevant to the rise of christianity that I refuse to go down the rabbit hole.  Let's take them in order from the top.  We'll get here eventually, maybe.


You have no firsthand accounts.  You are trying to certify mythology by referring to folklore.

And you wonder why Ahistoricist get categorized with flat earthers and holocaust, unsurprisingly there’s even a zeitgeist film promoting this idea.

Apparently non-existing people can write letters, and we can’t trust anything from Josephus.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christ, you're worse off than I thought.  

"Paul" isn't any more a real person than jesus was, lol.  You referred to a character in a work of fiction as a firsthand account of another character in the same work of fiction....

Hercules and zues said a bunch of things too, also "well attested."

This is so far off from fact and irrelevant to the rise of christianity that I refuse to go down the rabbit hole.  Let's take them in order from the top.  We'll get here eventually, maybe.


You have no firsthand accounts.  You are trying to certify mythology by referring to folklore.

And you wonder why Ahistoricist get categorized with flat earthers and holocaust, unsurprisingly there’s even a zeitgeist film promoting this idea.

Is that as much as you know about critical scholarship?  That nutballs have opinions and people make movies?  Do you want to have this conversation or just sling shit back and forth?  

Apparently non-existing people can write letters, and we can’t trust anything from Josephus.

I take it by this newest series of batshit diversions you have no explanation for your attempt to certify mythology by referring to folklore, but perhaps you simply don't understand why this is a loons idea of historicity?

Are you under the impression that the legendary character of paul is a novel position held exclusively by a-historicists and filmmakers?  It's not.  It's the standard position of new testament scholarship..there is no dispute in this from any corner. You can stow the "my mythology or no history" routine..I'll tell you that from the outset. It's trash, entirely non-academic..and I won't humor you. So consider that you're wasting your breath the next time you blurt out some silly shit like the above?

[Acrobat]

And you wonder why Ahistoricist get categorized with flat earthers and holocaust, unsurprisingly there’s even a zeitgeist film promoting this idea.

Is that as much as you know about critical scholarship?  That nutballs have opinions and people make movies?  Do you want to have this conversation or just sling shit back and forth?  

Apparently non-existing people can write letters, and we can’t trust anything from Josephus.

I take it by this newest series of batshit diversions you have no explanation for your attempt to certify mythology by referring to folklore, but perhaps you simply don't understand why this is a loons idea of historicity?

Are you under the impression that the legendary character of paul is a novel position held exclusively by a-historicists and filmmakers?  It's not.  It's the standard position of new testament scholarship..there is no dispute in this from any corner. You can stow the "my mythology or no history" routine..I'll tell you that from the outset. It's trash, entirely non-academic..and I won't humor you. So consider that you're wasting your breath the next time you blurt out some silly shit like the above?

So the standard position among NT scholars are that Paul and Jesus were not historical figures?

Is it also the standard position of historians that Josephus writings shouldn’t be trusted, including non disputed portions of his text?

I point out a first hand account, you claim it’s not a first hand account because supposedly the person who wrote it didn’t exist.

I point to the writings of the only Roman historian writing of that entire period of Roman Palestine as evidence as well, and you claim that his historical writings aren’t evidence either.

These are cards from a flat earthers playbook whether you realize it or not.

Let me tell you about the actual standard positions among historians and NT scholars.

That Jesus and Paul are historical figures, that Josephus is a reliable source for first century history, that the James portion is authentic.

I don’t care if you’re in a secular or religious university, but no major history or NT scholarship department suggests otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that as much as you know about critical scholarship?  That nutballs have opinions and people make movies?  Do you want to have this conversation or just sling shit back and forth?  

I take it by this newest series of batshit diversions you have no explanation for your attempt to certify mythology by referring to folklore, but perhaps you simply don't understand why this is a loons idea of historicity?

Are you under the impression that the legendary character of paul is a novel position held exclusively by a-historicists and filmmakers?  It's not.  It's the standard position of new testament scholarship..there is no dispute in this from any corner.  You can stow the "my mythology or no history" routine..I'll tell you that from the outset.  It's trash, entirely non-academic..and I won't humor you.  So consider that you're wasting your breath the next time you blurt out some silly shit like the above?

So the standard position among NT scholars are that Paul and Jesus were not historical figures?

Is it also the standard position of historians that Josephus writings shouldn’t be trusted,  including non disputed portions of his text?

I point out a first hand account, you claim it’s not a first hand account because supposedly the person who wrote it didn’t exist.

I point to the writings of the only Roman historian writing of that entire period of Roman Palestine as evidence as well, and you claim that his historical writings aren’t evidence either.

These are cards from a flat earthers playbook whether you realize it or not.

Let me tell you about the actual standard positions among historians and NT scholars.

That Jesus and Paul are historical figures, that Josephus is a reliable source for first century history, that the James portion is authentic.

I don’t care if you’re  in a secular or religious university, but no major history or NT scholarship department suggests otherwise.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and go research these issues before you attempt to engage in the convo?  As for the rest, I told you I wouldn't humor that mouth breathing shit, lol...did you expect something to have changed since I last posted?

Or maybe you could just use the search function on these boards, where this same convo has occurred a dozen times or more in recent memory? You have failed, again, to explain how you made such a tremendous mistake in the very first article of your growing list of assertions. Until you put in that time and engage in this conversation, I see no reason to type the same thing I typed to the last nutbar who came in and made the same assertions, again.

[Acrobat]

So the standard position among NT scholars are that Paul and Jesus were not historical figures?

Is it also the standard position of historians that Josephus writings shouldn’t be trusted,  including non disputed portions of his text?

I point out a first hand account, you claim it’s not a first hand account because supposedly the person who wrote it didn’t exist.

I point to the writings of the only Roman historian writing of that entire period of Roman Palestine as evidence as well, and you claim that his historical writings aren’t evidence either.

These are cards from a flat earthers playbook whether you realize it or not.

Let me tell you about the actual standard positions among historians and NT scholars.

That Jesus and Paul are historical figures, that Josephus is a reliable source for first century history, that the James portion is authentic.

I don’t care if you’re  in a secular or religious university, but no major history or NT scholarship department suggests otherwise.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and go research these issues before you attempt to engage in the convo?  As for the rest, I told you I wouldn't humor that mouth breathing shit, lol...did you expect something to have changed since I last posted?

Or maybe you could just use the search function on these boards, where this same convo has occurred a dozen times or more in recent memory? You have failed, again, to explain how you made such a tremendous mistake in the very first article of your growing list of assertions. Until you put in that time and engage in this conversation, I see no reason to type the same thing I typed to the last nutbar who came in and made the same assertions, again.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve taken several NT history courses at a secular university, listened through entire courses from top tier universities, have read several books and texts books on the subject, including ones written by atheists like Bart Ehrman, and there’s probably very few people on this forum that know more about the subject than I do. In fact I’ve debated this topic in places like this for over a decade, even with folks like Richard Carrier, and Rook Hawkins.

It’s pretty self evident that you don’t, since you dont even seem aware that the standard position among historians and NT scholars is that Jesus was a historical person, as well as Paul, that Josephus is a reliable source for 1st Century Roman Palestine history.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don’t know about you, but I’ve taken several NT history courses at a secular university, listened through entire courses from top tier universities, have read several books and texts books on the subject, including ones written by atheists like Bart Ehrman, and there’s probably very few people on this forum that know more about the subject than I do. In fact I’ve debated this topic in places like this for over a decade, even with folks like Richard Carrier, and Rook Hawkins.

Too bad you can't get your money back, I suppose?  If you're well informed, then act like it, and stop saying silly fundy shit.

It’s pretty self evident that you don’t, since you dont even seem aware that the  standard position among historians and NT scholars is that Jesus was a historical person, as well as Paul, that Josephus is a reliable source for 1st Century Roman Palestine history.

I already told you that I wasn't going to let you gish gallup your way through this convo.

Explain why you're attempting to certify mythology by folklore, calling it a "first hand account"..lol...the first assertion you made, or I'm just going to leave you here to say more silly shit to everyone else who isn't listening.