Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

People laugh and say that I am willfully ignorant at remaining a believer. My only response is that I dont want my pursuit of truth to lead only to more questions and more uncertainty. And I would be as much of a fool to declare there to be no Historical Jesus ....thus negating the possibility that a universal Creator is real and tried to relate to humanity through a human medium.Then of course I suppose I can't deny what the facts say.Can anyone deny anything that they don't want to deny to begin with, however?

I suppose. My Dad gave me everything I ever wanted...except certainty. He died when I was 17. Looking back, I wanted him...not his money. I wanted him to never leave me.Then there is jar. Jar used to talk to me in chat. Now, he wants nothing to do with chat or with talking. Frankly it makes me mad! He says he never would accept lotto money...yet the man works every day and has no time for talking? what kind of a worthwhile life is that?My idea of God is of one who always has time. Who would never leave me alone. I dont need money from God. I need God.I dont need riches from life. I need certainty. To me, science is vapid and hollow. Yes, they will cure cancer. But what good is 20 more years added to a lifespan that has nothing promised, no certainty, and a certain death with an uncertain conclusion...aside from ceasing to exist?? These people seek to find truth. Yet they only find uncertainty apart from the false god of human reason.

Sorry to have ran your topic off of the road, Jon. Let me attempt to steer it back on the road.... We cant very well discuss Jesus...at least with believers....without asking you to tell us your preconceptions about a historical Jesus. Was He just a he? (a mere human) Do you believe that Ehrman seeks to walk a middle road so as not to offend his believer friends? Of all of the evidence (or lack of) that you have read so far, what are your personal tentative conclusions regarding Jesus? Finally, what is your current opinion on Jesus Mythicism In most cases, yes. In regards to whether Jesus existed or not, I dont see enough evidence that he did'nt...and I admit to a bias in favor of him actually existing. I wonder what Ehrman thinks regarding admitting any bias. I think that Dougherty has a clear bias against, but I could change my mind.

Do you feel that you have no bias for/or against? Do you feel that evidence is required for belief?

I never was impressed much with "absence of evidence equals no Jesus as default position. I concur that for many, the idea of no Jesus...historical or otherwise, is a biased position.For an argument supposedly based only on facts or the lack of same, there is quite a bit of emotionalism from either side...and it seems to me that there has to be a reason why the atheist side invests so much emotion into these arguments. Just what feels so good about your (not you personally,Crash) position, exactly?

ok, but lets let Jon have his topic back. We can argue this one elsewhere....should I simply start a new topic? Lets go hereEdited by Phat, : linkEdited by Phat, :

And yet it does. Conceptions Of GodThis wiki article, though far from conclusive, brings up some valid points. Thus, the idea that such a Being must be composed of chemicals limits the being by definition. I can see why you prefer building a case for origins that is based in what we can prove and understand. I can also see why such an approach limits the understanding and conceptualization of a Deity. In other words, if we can't understand it, it likely need not exist for all intents and purposes. The problem with your approach is that it is similar to some philosophies of God. To be fair, you don't actually say that we create our own reality, but that we merely define it through the scientific method.

They can't find a lot of the supposed antimatter in the universe that should exist either. Does that then mean that it does not exist for ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES?One difference between believers and the rest of you in general seems to be that believers presuppose that God should exist. The rest of you see no such need.For me, I was culturally raised to believe that God should exist. Whether He actually did or not was never discussed. Later, at around age 30, I became "born again" and felt subjective evidence of His reality. Subsequent arguments with many of you here have shown me that I had no evidence...despite my having experienced many unknown events that my bias would show me corroborated my belief. I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone anymore, apart from attempts at argumentative persuasion. I'm beginning to think that there is a reason for all of this disconnect in our culture, and I'm not sure how to explain it. It would be nothing more than my subjective belief anyway, but I am convinced that the scientific method has not neatly tied this argument up yet.After all, look at how long humans have been around in the grand scheme of things. look at how often we were wrong before about many things. It is just as silly in my opinion to presuppose that no God is necessary as it is to believe that one is. You limit yourselves by sticking to evidence. You also limit yourselves by believing that such imagination is limited to children's stories. You have far too much faith in scientific and psycho-sociological progress alone. Finally, you limit your whole hypothetical idea of what God would be like if he DID exist. Ask A Humanist Note the variety of answers. They all sound like you guys! Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

While I personally think that your cut & pastes are getting better and more towards making a point, I see that your audience is not interested in your style of debate. Perhaps you need to listen to them and shorten your responses.

If either a unicorn or fairy had impacted human history as much as a supposed mythological figure, the conclusion that I would start with is that there must be something to this character.

OK, but my question would then be why *this* character? Why not another traveling rabbi? Why did Jesus catch on while lesser brands fizzled?

I'll saythis much. Neither Muhammed nor (especially) Joseph Smith would have even been widely known had Jesus not started the trend. Muhammed was Burger King to Jesus McDonalds. Islam had their own hero to emulate...and in opposition to those pesky European Catholics. Same with our Mormon franchise here in America. They needed to have their own brand. The next question is what did jesus originally represent that made Him a popular brand? Hope for oppressed downtrodden people? Liberation from stern secular governments? Liberation from authoritarian religions? Or perhaps you guys will argue that He became a myth that supported the creation of a franchise.

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--->

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...

I would assert (as a believer) that the gospels are true *because* I accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. Keep in mind that a majority of Christians have acknowledged Jesus as Lord and Savior but far fewer have accepted it as fact from the depths of their soul. Critics would argue that I simply bought into a story. I would argue that I had an encounter with Jesus. Not the Pastor. Not the school board Christians. Not politics. And much to your collective points, not because of objective evidence. The only evidence that I had and have is internal, personal, and very much subjective.A minority of "Christians" are light years away from the majority.IMHO a majority of todays Christians are driven by attitudes and behaviors. A minority is driven by belief. (Not YouTube videos, in this case! ) More to the point, you have found no one convincing. Hence your search continues.
​