well at least you admit its a theory and not the truth!

Ah so I did, sorry that was my mistake. He does identify as an agnostic.


That is a misrepresentation of his argument.

Nobody ever argued that Jesus was an octopus. However, people claimed that Jesus worked miracles. They wrote about them in detail, and even stated the number of witnesses on occasion. Yes, they are Christian writings from believers, but the fact remains that these claims were made about Jesus. Ehrman's argument is that these are claims that cannot be historically verified - to do so is impossible, and therefore, a matter of faith. However, the fact that these claims were made and widely believed cannot be dismissed out of hand. That is totally unlike the idea that Jesus was an octopus, which has absolutely nothing to back it up.


The oral tradition point has been answered before and countless authors have written about it. I'm not going to answer it again. Christianity was passed down orally in accordance with Jewish traditions and customs - this is a widely accepted historical fact. Indeed it's one of the key arguments atheists use for invalidating the Gospel accounts!


Ehrman's point is not that they have been performed - rather that people believed Jesus performed miracles. The miracles themselves are impossible to verify historically. The belief in miracles is really rather easy to verify.


Finally we're getting somewhere!


Because your argument revolves entirely around an absence of contemporary evidence during a period of ancient history which we have no contemporary evidence from! You seem to be asking for us to pull up the ancient Judea Facebook page!

Find me one ancient source that says the Jesus the Christians believed in never existed. Even the writings that are critical of Jesus call him a sorcerer, or a prophet, or possessed by demons, or a troublemaker etc. None of them say he didn't exist. Remember that the early Christian Church was persecuted - what's the best way to stop the spread of a religion? "Um, guys, he never existed - here's the proof *insert crucifixion records, declarations from Pilate, other Roman or Jewish authorities, the list goes on*"

We have some of the best independent corroborating evidence in the form of the writings of Josephus and Tacitus - much (RE: virtually all) of our understanding of ancient Roman/Jewish history comes from the writings of these two historians. Why would we possibly accept everything else they write and yet gloss over their references to Jesus as a historical figure? Note as well that neither of them are a Christian writer.

You speak about the silence that screams but we have given you evidence from Christian and non-Christian sources, modern historians, have explained why so many of your points are misguided at best or just plain wrong at worst.

You have offered nothing. Not one bit of corroborating evidence. Just conjecture and soundbites.

Unless you can offer something substantive in your reply to this, something I can actually get my teeth into and debate with you about, then I'm tired of your little publicity stunt.

no probs


ok using the octopus analogy was poor, but please take the gist, that anybody could claim anything with the scantest of evidence to prove a point.

sorry, i do dismiss the claims of miraclles out of hand. i simply do not believe in miracles, magic, the supernatural.



eh? what countless authors?... who?...

theres no evidence that witnesses to jesus passed down anything orally. theres only 4 gospels, why are there not more testimonies from the thousands that supposed to have witnessed him?.. youre answers have been conjecture, not evidence.



ok.... fair point, but belief in miracles isnt easy to verify... please enlighten me as to how this can be done! but i suspect all you can do is say that those people believed miracles happened - that isnt verification that they did take place. and of course the source for this is the bible, which if it is a construct, would say anything to justify the notion! it simply is not a reliable source, in fact there is NO reliable source.



wake up! thats option 2 i posted about days ago! nothing new.



aaarrrgh! ..... ive already covered this several times, i posted the quote from ehrman who clearly states there ARE contemporary accounts from the time!

here it is AGAIN! "I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.": - Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp55-56, 2001[1]"


but thats my point, you cannot prove the opposite! therefore it might be real!



no, yet again you are going over old ground.

josephus and tacitus wrote many years after jesus, there scant words are clearly 2nd or 3rd hand. their information comes from paul one way or another, they have no way of checking whether its true or not. so they wrote what they were told about jesus...


where?.... lol... you are funny, youve offered woolly excuses, conjecture, assumption, you have not offered evidence that disproves one bit of 'the silence that screams' .
please, be clear, show me one by one that claims made in 'the silence that screams' that you have debunked and proven wrong... go on!


how can i offer evidence of something thats not there?... if jesus didnt exist, there be nothing... which is exactly what we have! nothing.

ive offered corroborating evidence.... the lack of contemporary writings that mention jesus, despite there being plenty according to ehrman.

ive reasoned that with his job being to spread the word of salvation, theres a eerie silence until 30 years later. you say there isnt, but you cannot support that.

there is no reason, no evidence, nothing that can prove he existed. it is possible that he didnt, and thats the very point you nor anyone cannot completely rubbish.

ive answered every question, ive stopped repeat answers though. if youd rewad the thread youd get those answers PLUS where my sources are from.

no he didnt. you cannot prove he existed, ive provided the source of my information to show why he might well have never existed and ive provided a reasoned argument to why he didnt.

i cannot see at all why any historian or scholar who, from an unbiased pov (as opposed to being a biblical scholar whos life has been trying to explain the early bible) can possibly say with certainty that jesus existed. there is NO hard evidence for this...[/quote]

No, I asked what scholars are your sources.

No one has said "prove" he existed, did they. It's the preponderance of evidence that he did, and not from those who spend their lives trying to explain the Bible, or whatever odd idea you have about scholarship.

Once again, historians can't speak to the supernatural part. That's out of their purview.

Some theories are true

This is true.... Evolution and the big bang for instance....

i have no idea what you are on about, this is just a jumbled mess following a quote you messed up.


exactly!..... and some arent! THATS MY POINT!

I'm not going to bore readers by breaking down each incorrect thing you've said.

Quite simply, you haven't named a scholarly source for your conclusion, so unless you have a Ph.D in ancient history, I'll go with the scholars.

And secondly, you're messing the supernatural in with history, that no credible scholar does.

I hope that's clear.

You can also say that evidence exists today in the form of Christians. You can't prove that EbNS caused all the things attributed to it, either.

Do muslims also prove the existance of allah?

Do scientologists prove the existance of xemu?

No one is talking about proof. They are talking about preponderance of evidence.

Do you have proof of things you think EbNS caused, or do you accept them because of the larger theory.?

Or do you agree that just because you can't explain how everything occurred, it doesn't invalidate the theory?

You want it both ways,maybe. Attack others on speculation but you don't want your own theory touched.

What can i say? My favourite animal is the archaeopteryx....

And no doubt you have an explanation for self sacrifice in simple organisms.

Mushy's argument is a thinly veiled atheistic one, although he doesn't realize that Ehrman is an agnostic atheist, and one of the best scholars, who does not doubt that Jesus existed.

but you need to, if im wrong on anything, dont fudge around making claims like this...simply prove it! provide the actual evidence from an unbiased source that proves beyond doubt what ive said is wrong.


and thats it.... no free thinking, no reasoned thought, just the cop out that you always do, hiding behind biased scholars.


now you confuse me...... thats a point ive made.... if no credible scholar messes with the supernatural then, by your reasoning, no scholar can possibly believe that jesus was the son of god! no scholar can believe the miracle stories! in which case no scholar can hold the bible up as an accurate document!

your religion is based upon supernatural events. youve just disproven your own argument!



...... and there is no contemporary evidence, and the only later 'evidence' comes from a very small group of people many years later that constructed the whole religion.

the facts are, that despite it being his job to spread the news of salvation, no one appeared to have wrote anything down, or passed on stories orally, which out of the thousands that witnessed him should raise a red flag to any unbiased, reasoned scholar/historian.


ive made no suggestions that im anything other then atheist...

what id like to know..... ehrman himself provides that fact that there are no contemporary accounts of jesus, he lists the sources such writings might have arisen, nothing about jesus, nothing about his life, teachings, miracles, crowd pulling meetings, death and crucifiction - why he thinks jesus existed?

there is no evidence to prove jesus existed... nothing at all...

now you say he has no doubt jesus existed, so tell me, which jesus was this? you lot always point to these scholars and historians who think jesus existed - but you never tell us which one.... was he
1 - the biblical miracle working son of god? or was he
2 - an ordinary person / s who preached, gathered a small following, who the biblical character is based on, but is not the son of god, not the magician.

most people can accept (2) is the most likely option, indeed i too can accept that..

on the other hand, he might never have existed, theres nothing to suggest he did .

There is just no adequate way to respond to someone who uses the phrase 'hides behind scholars.'

is that it?..... your response the the reasonable post i made?

please, go away. youve added nothing to this discussion.

You're confusing belief in miracles with evidence that they actually happened.

I can't believe you're actually asking for proof that first century Jews believed miracles could happen, so I'm not going to waste my time on that one.


One minute you hate Ehrman, the next you love him - make your mind up! We've already established that you've taken this quote out of context, given that Ehrman is not a Jesus mythicist and therefore this quotation has nothing to do with the historical existence of Jesus.

Without the full context and without being a mind reader I can't be sure what Ehrman is referring to exactly, but given that we know where he stands on the historical existence of Jesus, I'm happy to let this one pass me by.


Why on earth would Josephus or Tacitus get their information from Paul? His letters were not in public circulation, and he was an enemy of the Romans who was executed for his beliefs. Moreover he wasn't even a founding member of the Church in Rome, and only played a supporting role in its development. The idea that two of Rome's greatest historians would get their information from a minor figure in a minor religion is ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as the fact he died around AD 68 and Josephus and Tacitus wrote thirty years later!

It's also worth noting what Josephus' reference to Jesus actually say. Aside from the disputed Testimonium Flavium, there is another aside reference, which suggests it is not a Christian interpolation. It only mentions Jesus in reference to being the brother of James:



I've read that silly article and dismissed it as unhistorical nonsense. However, give me one of the claims from it, I'll more than happily show you why it is nonsense.


Except that's not true. If Jesus didn't exist there would be evidence that his existence was disputed somewhere in history - we simply do not find this. The Church would not have started within several years of the death of a fictional character, and it certainly wouldn't have been persecuted because it would not have grown. Presuming Jesus didn't exist, why on earth would the disciples of this fictional character be willing to be killed and tortured for something they KNEW to be false?! It is a ludicrous argument. And please don't say "yes but there were martyrs in all religions" - there were, but the martyrdom of the Christian disciples is unique in that they claimed they walked, talked, ate and drank with their God. If it was all a lie and Jesus never existed, why would they die for it?


Several times it has been explained to you that there was no 30 year silence - you continue to ignore this.

I forgot to bring up something in terms of archaelogical evidence for Jesus by the way - the James Ossuary - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary.

Unfortunately this is an often overlooked artifact due to the forgery trial - however, the owner was acquited of all charges and most experts in the field either agree that it is a genuine inscription (stating "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus") or that, if it is a forgery, it is such a good one it is impossible to tell the difference between them.

So there you go - contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus

Likely a good idea because if you dismiss the major scholars,unless you are yourself a major scholar or citing one, then it's pitting an amateur opinion against historical research.

And nothing good can come of that.

Bored is what Jesus would look like if he read this thread.

Exactly.

ok, fair play.


i neither love nor hate ehrman. i have some respect for his opinion, but unlike others i dont believe everything he says.

it has not been established that the quote is taken out of context. thats your woolly excuse for trying to dismiss it. the quote is quite clear and unambiguous.

of COURSE its got everything to do with the existence of jesus! you cannot ignore it because you cannot disprove it!



lol, more fudging! answers like this are the very reason i gave up my faith, ignore the difficult questions... whether ehrman or anyone believes in the biblical jesus, or the ordinary guy the biblical version was based on, is absolutely fundamentally at the center of the religion. please see the answer i posted to bollywood above on this.



because that where all early information on jesus comes from, indirectly i should have said, i dont mean personally.


ill point you to 'the silence that screams' , read the article on josephus and tacitus along with others. youll see that josephus DIDNT write about jesus, but that it was inserted later by others.



lol... its not 'unhistorical nonsense', its factual, everything in it can be checked and verified. it strips away all the flannel and bs surrounding jesus... and guess what, theres nothing left!

you will not ever concede that its true, because it will severely challenge the grounds of your belief. but, from where im sitting, it makes perfect sense and strongly suggests that jesus did not exist.

and its rather funny that you think its silly nonsense but are willing to believe in supernatural events that simply do not happen!

ok... read the bit on josephus, then tell me with corroborating evidence, not wolly fudge opinion, but evidence, that proves what is written about josephus is wrong.



not so..... once the religion had got going it was assumed he existed. they hadnt got the resources to prove he didnt.


we do not know when the church started... theres absolutely no reason why a church, a religion, shouldnt have started based upon a charismatic preacher. you say why would they die for it if they didnt believe it to be true? but people have done that for many many years... look at that massacre/mass suicide in waco texas 20 odd years ago. mohammad atta flew a plane into the twin towers because he believed in his religion. being prepared to die for your beliefs do not validate it as being 'true'.


you keep claiming this but dont provide the evidence. the first gospel was written about 30 years later. why, after preaching to thousands, was there apparently nothing going on? it would have been a huge visible movement, not a quit secret one.


.... if it was proven to be genuine, it would support that james had a brother called jesus.

doesnt mean this was the biblical jesus, nor that this jesus was the son of god.

all you do is hide behind scholars... thats all you ever do... but you refuse to answer the questions i posed about these scholars..

just out of interest, who do you think composed 'the silence that screams'?... id suggest it was scholars, because youd have to be a scholar to have the depth of knowledge needed to compose such an article.

Who composed the silence that screams then?

And if that's your source, and you assume it's scholars, why accuse someone else of hiding behind them?

Clearly you're hiding behind whoever wrote that article.

[QUOTE mushymanrob]ive answered every question, ive stopped repeat answers though. if youd rewad the thread youd get those answers PLUS where my sources are from.

no he didnt. you cannot prove he existed, ive provided the source of my information to show why he might well have never existed and ive provided a reasoned argument to why he didnt. [/quote]


No, I asked what scholars are your sources.

Once again, historians can't speak to the supernatural part. That's out of their purview.