Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

I most definitely cannot be "swayed" by just anyone. I *will admit* to an internal bias regarding paying more attention when the subject is about belief *if* it resonates with my own developing belief. I am more inclined to listen to a Pastor (especially one with good credentials) than I am to an atheist or mythicist. I will not try and question, doubt, or attempt to falsify a favorable source as intensely unless I am presented with contrary evidence regarding that source. A perfect example is the disgraced (and deceased) Ravi Zacharias. I would listen to Ravi quite a bit and read a couple of his books, and thought he was allright without really knowing him (I never met him) nor hearing an corroborating commentary from anyone else who knew him...except through the media. To be honest, there was something missing but I coulnt put a finger on it. And why would I attempt to falsify him? He was respected within the Christian community at large.Theo smelt the rat right away, but I didn't trust Theos information since he is a known skeptic and an atheist. Later on, I found evidence from different sources that Ravi was "fake" and willfully deceptive but didn't want to believe it until the story broke and his own organization distanced itself from him. Not only did I have to read the evidence and data, but it took other Christians (believers) to do the same before I changed my opinion about him.The incident never caused me to question my faith, but it did cause me to pay more attention to my susceptibility to gullibility.

Why would I need evidence for Jesus? The very fact that I discussed religion for twenty plus years shows that I have a passion/interest for something! What specifically could that passion be? Surely not simply an oversized ego! Perhaps some questions that we could examine can be discussed.Here is my list.

• What differentiates a cult from established belief?
• Why do humans seek religion and/or why do they seem to need it? (some, anyway)
• Why has Christianity continued to spread and not simply die off?
• Why does Islam grow and continue to spread and not die off? (They would agree that their founder is now dead.)

What would you expect to find under the hood?

An unconverted person, for one thing. What? You say that you *should expect* evidence of absence? Well there you go, that answers your question. No, no *we* don't know that. If we did, there would be no disagreement among scholars and especially among believers and non-believers. You have fallen for a narrative likely set up by satan himself and advanced through many of the people and "evidence" that you accept. (Whats that you say? There is no evidence of satan, either?) Good God, man, what do you really want? If you want a human with all the answers, keep looking. What did he see?
What did he hear? Why did his life change so abruptly? Does that scare you? Anger you? Frustrate you? It evidently occupies at least some of your time because we always find you in these sorts of topics.What pearls of wisdom do you now have for me?You have mentioned to me before that the influence of organized religion is declining throughout some of the world. If that is true, do you think we will ever wipe out this "virus"? Seems to me that while the quantity of unquestioning believers is rapidly declining, the apologetic refuses to budge. Shall *we* simply ignore them or must *we* keep fighting for rationality?

I pray for it often. And for believers, prayers are not always answered. Non believers skip that step! In fact, I recommend that all believers ask each other for evidence rather than accept blind faith which is akin to wishes. We call that sort of evidence "accountability". It is also known as communion.

I never thought of it that way! Dwise1 would agree with you.I consider myself a Cosmological Creationist. Were I a Biblical Creationist, I wouldn't pray so much for evidence as I would for a better relationship with the God I believed in.If I just kept praying that I be proven right, my EGO would have gotten fed while my answered prayers would likely suggest humility. Perhaps a bit would determine the integrity of your messenger. I notice that you always criticize my "Christian Values" and, actually, I cant fault you for it. You do have a point, you know?

If, somehow magically, the worlds believers all turned into skeptics, would we as a planet be better off? Why or why not?
​

Im guessing that the head honcho at that archeological dig was an atheist. Or a secular humanist like yourself who never had his mind "tainted" by this pesky virus known as Christianity. RC Sproul actually went to school. He never dishonestly acquired diplomas and degrees as did Zacharias. For some reason you distrust all professing apologists...or am I just assuming?

I am unimpressed with a guy who simply has an accredited degree if they show no common sense. You refused to even listen to Sproul but simply googled his credentials, so you have not examined all of the evidence that he offers.Bart Ehrman once was a born again evangelical, later an Episcopal, and currently an Agnostic Atheist. I respect him for at least thinking and examinng both sides of the coin, which you seem to refuse to do. You yourself told me that you have never really been a believer, so how can you criticize them? One size does not fit all.

He even sent me a private message. I swear I don't know this guy. Were I an administrator I would boot the guy for being a spammer. And I'm not clicking on any of his links.AddByEdit: I think I found him. But then again, maybe not.
Jukebox MindIts the same guy, but he does not mention Jesus even once, so I know he is fake.Maybe the whole persona is made up and the reason is only to spam.
​

You present an interesting rabbit trail but that stuff doesn't help my faith much, though it adds to my rational database. I suppose that you Peanut Gallarians want to encourage me to critically evaluate my faith, but it didn't do much for you.Still, it makes for an interesting discussion between us.

So in other words, you already knew that these subjects(Marcion in particular) would lead us away from the existence of Jesus as revered by many millions of Christians. All that your scholarly quest for the reality of Jesus Christ(as God) has done is reinforce your lack of belief. I can't persuade you to be a believer any more than you will persuade me to be a critical scholar. From Message 3

Theo:

---

This book seems like it crystallizes my biggest criticism of Ehrman. He acts at time likes a creationist. he already has the conclusion and he searches for evidence to support his conclusion. He does not weigh all of the evidence and then come to a conclusion.
He has made comments in other books about
his*disdain for mythicists.*
His scholarship can be very impressive at times, but it seems like he may have thrown that out the window in order to attack his archenemy; the mythicists.

​

It sounds like Earl Doherty uses evidence much better than Ehrman does in this book.

---

Did you ever email Earl? You hang out with some of the biggest skeptics on the planet! Its a wonder...

The "evidence" that he is looking for will never be unearthed by scholars. A man can have more degrees than a thermometer and get no closer to the truth. Then again, you or I are no better. My personal belief is that humans never "find" Jesus. He finds them.

IIRC, Percys basic argument is that Theologians carry more weight among believers, which many of them also are. As a result, Critical Thinking and Falsification are less likely to be employed, and the EvC peanut gallery "preaches" evidence (objective verifiable, and/or bias free) exclusively. Falsification is a basic tool of the scientific method.
Last night, I spent a couple of hours listening to atheist activist Matt Dillahunty. I paid particularly close attention to his arguments as to why he is an atheist and why he remains unconvinced by Christian arguments(by believers) Needless to say, he overwhelmed *all* of his callers. Though one could charge that he (Dillahunty) was "sent" by the deceiver(Tempter) I see him as being a useful temper-er who helps me undergo a periodic reality check as to why my position has no monopoly on truth.What I took away from all this (in relation to this topic and your arguments with Percy and Theo) is that there is no possible way to have any more objective evidence than is already known (by both sides). Theo in particular is more like Dillahunty. He remains unconvinced and awaits evidence or logic which could hypothetically convince him. Percy is simply along for the ride. Less bias, perhaps? In my opinion, there are no winners in this debate. You either believe or you do not. Those who rely on evidence alone to influence their worldview will always remain unconvinced barring future "evidence". In my opinion, educational discipline only leads people towards more skepticism and more questions rather than any answer (though many prefer to be labeled as non believers.)

Perhaps that's why I rarely debate this stuff with you. You are uninterested in any possible validity favoring the Jesus of myth.
You prefer to save the education of future generations over finding the Golden Child.