Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

but there is no historical Jesus. Just because you can conceive of something does not make it true or relevant.
I can conceive of an Eleanor Roosevelt with sword in place of her right arm. Doesn't make it real.

quote:

---

but there is no historical Jesus.

---

So you assume. Maybe you should get some decent arguments to back up,that assumption.

The total lack of evidence does that for me. Yes, I assume no evidence means no Jesus.

Since there is no “total lack of evidence” that would seem to be your problem.

If I tell you that I saw a squirrel run across the street this morning, but provide no evidence, do you assume there was no squirrel?Perhaps more applicably, if I tell you that my neighbor saw a squirrel cross the street ten years ago, and I know this because I found an old Facebook post he wrote about it, would you assume there was no squirrel?I think it takes almost no evidence to believe somethings, and a lot of evidence to believe others. The more incredible the story, the more incredible the evidence needed. I know squirrels exist. If someone told me such a story, I might not be certain enough to make life-changing decisions, but I'd accept as more-likely-than-not that there probably was a squirrel. It's just not unusual.But a man living in that region during Roman occupation forming a messianic cult following that expressed ideals that overlap with ideals already known in the region, who perhaps became too much of a disruption and was executed by the Romans...that doesn't sound like it would take much evidence to be plausible. I couldn't positively assert that such a man existed with any specificity, but neither could I negatively assert that such a man never existed with specificity. It sounds like a collection of events and attributes that would not have been unusual for the historical time and place.It seems possible to me that the mythical Jesus was based on one or more real people, with some (a lot of) mythologizing tacked on.The only evidence I think required for that would be contemporary evidence of the Roman occupation, the existence of end-times religious leaders, evidence that the ideals expressed in this assertion were likely known at least to some at that time and place, and that the Romans executed people via crucifixion. And honestly, even with very little historical knowledge, my understanding is that all of those items are pretty decently established.

No, of course not. Nothing to question. But if you told me it was god running across the street I'd question. Quite plausible. But actual?Didn't the Romans record their executions? Wouldn't the governor's monthly status report to Caesar mention something as glorious and self-serving as offing another meddlesome rebel? Maybe everywhere but here?I'm not saying you're wrong, Rahvin. The scenarios are quite plausible. Just missing evidence, that IMHO shoulda/coulda/whoulda have been there if correct.When this kind of conclusion involves every aspect of the subject making them invisible to all outside the gospel ... there is a reasonable logical conclusion to be formed.

Wouldn't you want to know what god looked like? First of all, you have as many preconceived notions as I do "fantasies". You are a self proclaimed antitheist. You would no more seek such evidence as would I seek evidence that Joe Biden isnt senile and the media in his pocket. We tend to form our world view on what we want to be true. The problem is compounded by lack of objective evidence.If God exists, why did He not simply impress such a fact upon all human hearts and minds? If There Is A God, Why Are There Atheists?The Late Dr.Sproul had a winsome style of communication that appealed to thinking people with open minds and no negative preconceived notions about God existing.I expect that you wont bother to listen to it, but I will point out some of the better quotes in the audio narrative.
2:55-4:15.5:30--->

You do know that we don't have Tacitus's original manuscript for the *Annals* or any other works? What we have are copies of his works that were made centuries after his death. The earliest surviving copies of Tacitus's *Annals* date to the 9th and 11th centuries AD, which means there's a considerable gap between the time Tacitus wrote and the surviving manuscripts.So scholars have to rely on textual analysis, historical context, and comparisons with other ancient sources to assess its authenticity. The 'Christ' mention is a later addition, an interpolation or, to be more blunt, a forgery added by Christians in an attempt to make their claim for Jesus's existence more credible.All that is quite separate from the fact that Tacitus was writing non-contemporaneously. He wasn't even born when Jesus was said to be alive. His information even if he had it was hearsay written about 80 years after the alleged events. It would be stories that he heard from Christians.

Not at all. Remember, Phat, I'm the one who poofed all the gods into oblivion with the power of my mind some time ago. I know very well what each and every one of those posers looks like. Not now, no. That quest to find has been completed. I ended up killing all of them, Phat. I killed each and every god, devil, satan, demon and all their associated kin, Phat. There is not one holy ghost left to find.I don't care for arguments made of apologists paper mache, Phat. They just repeat the same-old same-old. I've seen them all. I'll skip your embedded bullshit.

So in other words, you are as close minded as I am. As long as we understand each other and the wide gulf that separates us...

My mind was opened by Newton and Einstein, Nietzsche and Kant.Your mind was once a steel trap. Then you devoured a bible; now it is rusted shut.

Yes, I guess you've told us all we need to know about yourself.--Percy

Well, yes, the issue of focus is the key thing. Was there a squirrel? What does it matter? It's just small talk - I might not even remember the conversation tomorrow.But was there a Jesus who walked on water and turned water into wine? That matters, because it drives the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of billions of people, people I might have to deal with, people who might show up at school board meetings and push for the teaching of creationism or, more recently, for the banning of books.Then there's the alternative being offered in this thread. Was there a real person who did none of the things related in the gospels but upon whom the Jesus mythology was somehow built? An actual young rabbi and his congregants who Paul badgered because of the beliefs he espoused but who otherwise bore no resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels?How would we ever know? All searchers for the historical Jesus make arguments for which parts of the NT Jesus stories they think hint at the person behind the myth. It's true, they argue, that deeply religious people might make up miraculous stories, but what possible reason could they have for making up that Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch? It must be true.Yeah, right.As a matter of history I can't help but be curious about whether there was a real person behind the Jesus myth. I wish there were evidence one way or the other, but as far as I can tell there isn't. I'll listen to arguments that this or that is evidence of something about the real Jesus, but I've listened to these arguments for a long time and found nothing convincing.But those arguing both for and against a real person behind the Jesus myth are light years away from those who believe we should accept Jesus as Lord and Savior because everything in the gospels is true. People writing in the 2nd century would have little difficulty writing stories set in the 1st century that appear plausible to modern eyes, but plausibility was the best they could achieve. Modern analyses reveal a multitude of problems. Sure, it's possible. So's that he was an obscure mystic. So's that there was never any such person. The same type of evidence establishes that Sidney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities was based upon a real person.--Percy

Hi Tangle, Yes, and if I did I couldn't read it as it was written in Latin Are you telling me that a man that was writing the History of the Roman Empire who was in a government position equal to our senators was going around talking to people the government was killing because they would not worship the Roman Gods. I really don't think they would even let him know they were a follower of Christ as they would have ended up dead. When would Christians have had access to these Annals?EVIDENCE that such happened please. He was not writing a novel or a story book. He was writing the History of the Roman Empire from AD 14 through AD 66. Being a Historian and a government official why would he need hearsay information when he would have had total access to the official government documents? Why would Christians even look at him much less talk to him. Pliney was killing people just because he thought they were Christians at that time.God Bless,

The earliest copies of the Annals that are available to us were all created by Christian scribes, see here for more detailed information. There is really no reason to doubt this at all. Any information on Christianity Tacitus obtained from government documents would have been the words of Christians written down by government officials. In other words, it would be based on a third party's account of what the Christians said, or to use the more succinct term for presenting a third party's words: it would be hearsay.Incidentally, it was recently suggested that Tacitus' source was Pliny himself.