Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently Ehrman also agrees that Paul says Jesus was a pre-existent angel in Galatians 4:14.
Ehrman also definitely accepts that parts of the gospels are non-historical.
It should not be earth shattering that gospel Jesus did not exist, even if based on an actual man that did not do anything mentioned in the NT.
Such as Paul's letters and Hebrews?
The OP touches upon ideas that "He's a myth and i can prove it...."
Among those with a credible background and knowledge base the question about whether Jesus existed is settled. Yes, he was a real and he was deeply rooted as a Jew. Like Jews of his time there was no room for pagan gods or traditions in their worship.
What is typically posted on topics like this is in favor of discredited ideas and ignoring credible sources.
Lets be clear. Rejecting him means discounting the Biblical testimonies, the historical evidence and credible sources.
Rejecting him out of ignorance is understandable.
Rejecting him out of willful ignorance by discounting his very existence is not.
Jesus did exist. Discussion about the "gospel Jesus" (eg was he God? was he an angel? etc) is one thing but the belief among many atheists that he never existed or that the concept of Jesus is a rehash of pagan traditions and ideas is not credible.
The OP touches upon ideas that "He's a myth and i can prove it...."
Among those with a credible background and knowledge base the question about whether Jesus existed is settled. Yes, he was a real and he was deeply rooted as a Jew. Like Jews of his time there was no room for pagan gods or traditions in their worship.
What is typically posted on topics like this is in favor of discredited ideas and ignoring credible sources.
Lets be clear. Rejecting him means discounting the Biblical testimonies, the historical evidence and credible sources.
Rejecting him out of ignorance is understandable.
Rejecting him out of willful ignorance by discounting his very existence is not.
Jesus did exist. Discussion about the "gospel Jesus" (eg was he God? was he an angel? etc) is one thing but the belief among many atheists that he never existed or that the concept of Jesus is a rehash of pagan traditions and ideas is not credible.
The Biblical testimonies are rubbish. The historical evidence is all but non-existent. I don't know what you consider credible sources, so can't comment on that.
Unlike the OP, I do not see the historicity of Jesus as terribly important, one way or the other, and although I lean his way (or more broadly, in the direction of the mythicists), I am not 100% confident in it. Maybe 65 to 75%. But as you point out, that is very different from questioning "gospel Jesus". To accept Gospel Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man, an historical Jesus would be necessary but far from sufficient. Since the evidence for "gospel Jesus" not existing satisfies me, I don't NEED for him to not exist in history. It's just an interesting question / debate to me. He might be a discrete individual sitting at the heart of the Christian mythos, who might be amazed at what has been spun about his life. That presents no problem for me.
The Biblical testimonies are rubbish. The historical evidence is all but non-existent. I don't know what you consider credible sources, so can't comment on that.
Unlike the OP, I do not see the historicity of Jesus as terribly important, one way or the other, and although I lean his way (or more broadly, in the direction of the mythicists), I am not 100% confident in it. Maybe 65 to 75%. But as you point out, that is very different from questioning "gospel Jesus". To accept Gospel Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man, an historical Jesus would be necessary but far from sufficient. Since the evidence for "gospel Jesus" not existing satisfies me, I don't NEED for him to not exist in history. It's just an interesting question / debate to me. He might be a discrete individual sitting at the heart of the Christian mythos, who might be amazed at what has been spun about his life. That presents no problem for me.
We agree on that, and I would say that same about Siddhartha in my Buddhism.
The only thing that really matters is -- is some stated principle wise. But I feel that same way about any principle from any source. I don't care if Gabby Hayes said it. Is it wise? But, if you notice, few christians here talk about principles. They dwell on proving what they can't prove. Twice I've tried to get threads started about the principles in the Sermon On The Mount; those threads suffered a quick death of being ignored.
The OP touches upon ideas that "He's a myth and i can prove it...."
Among those with a credible background and knowledge base the question about whether Jesus existed is settled. Yes, he was a real and he was deeply rooted as a Jew. Like Jews of his time there was no room for pagan gods or traditions in their worship.
Among those with a credible background and knowledge base, the question about whether Jesus existed is also questioned and doubted. You are not the only one who can argue from authority. What is important is what the evidence itself says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
What is typically posted on topics like this is in favor of discredited ideas and ignoring credible sources.
What is typically posted on topics like this by those arguing for a historical Jesus is ignoring both credible sources AND what the NT itself says.
I have mentioned some of that evidence, and you need to refute that evidence, not post something that is not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Lets be clear. Rejecting him means discounting the Biblical testimonies, the historical evidence and credible sources.
Rejecting him out of ignorance is understandable.
Rejecting him out of willful ignorance by discounting his very existence is not.
Accepting a historical Jesus out of ignorance is understandable. To ignore that evidence is not. Historical people do not create universes, and then take on human form so that they can be crucified. And that is what parts of the NT say happened.
And you have no definite historical evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Jesus did exist. Discussion about the "gospel Jesus" (eg was he God? was he an angel? etc) is one thing but the belief among many atheists that he never existed or that the concept of Jesus is a rehash of pagan traditions and ideas is not credible.
Except it is credible. Even many relevant historians accept much of the story about Jesus is invented, and we can see how the story of Jesus evolved into gospel Jesus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
