Thank you for your comment @wilx.
A quote from the article you linked to:-
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
This use of Christian writings produces a circular argument, therefore this negates any so called evidence the article uses.
Bert Ehrman was a born again fundamentalist Christian as a teenager, changed to being a liberal Christian and now says he is a secular agnostic. He is still a professor of religious studies at The Department of Religious Studies, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I would be inclined to take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Many of the authors used as sources are biblical scholars and could be said to be biased. Maybe protecting their careers?
Nothing in this article shows any proof of Jesus.
Historians have their methods for determining the factuality of something; most all, Christian or not, agree he existed according to those methods. This is not arguable, secular ones will tell you this themselves, have heard a couple do so. Ehrman is a known agnostic no one who knows of him will ever accuse him of being a closet christian. Feel free to research this further to confirm this all, if you wish.
Hello again @wilx and thank you for continuing the discussion.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Jesus except for what has been written by Christian believers (see these links here and here). His followers claim extraordinary things about this person yet all they can point to are writings by anonymous authors. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary and incontrovertible proof. Christianity has never been able to provide that.
Well profesional historians will disagree with you. Here's an interview on a radio show with Ehrman explaining why (with YouTube description):
Non-Christian agnostic historian, Bart Ehrman, is invited on to an atheist radio show apparently in the hope that he will argue against Jesus being an historical person. However, much to this atheist surprise and disapointment Ehrman argues why no serious historian (including himself) denies Jesus' historicity!
This is all very well but again he can offer no proof as to the existence of Jesus apart from writings done by believers. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus which is remarkable given the things that are supposed to have happened around him. If someone raised people from the dead, could feed five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes and have earthquakes etc when they died on the cross (to name only a few things he was supposedly involved in) then surely someone, somewhere, would have written about it separately from the believers. There is nothing.
Let me ask you this. I take it that you believe that Jesus existed based on what the Bible says. Do you believe everything else in the Bible?
Ok. I sat through the video. Will you, in turn, please take the time to read the following article here which gives a good summary for why a belief in Jesus isn't based on fact and also gives a good reason why certain historians may asert Jesus existed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Tnx for the discussion, thing again is that it's not just certain historians it's most all, their professional methodology leaves them with an undeniable conclusion.. your argument is with them, all who read this can draw their own conclusion on this.
Tnx but am knowlegable of all the reasons why the non-professionals give for their beliefs, and tho worthy of some thought after such and study found them as wanting as the pros..
Best to you in this classroom of life.
This is a really bad historian if he is telling you that the proof is in Pual's writings. If you read Galatians (Galatians 4 verses 22-24) Paul tell those with eyes to see that this guy has no idea what he is talking about.