+BannorPhil You may not have come across it yet, but Christians use Satan to explain this. That it was recorded reliably but Satan came in to mess up history! Pretty sad argument, but this is what many of them say when backed in to this corner.

Robert C. Christian Do they give any references to support this? Or is it just another rectally-derived claim?

God can create and destroy universe, but can't defeat Satan. lol. Also, almighty god doesn't even need a book to tell his story, he can just talk to all of us directly.

According to St. Augustine, a much greater scholar than Bart Ehrman and a man who lived closer to the time of Christ, the Gospel of Matthew was written about six years after Jesus' ascension into Heaven and the Gospel of Mark was written about ten years after it. Also, in all four Gospels Jesus is called "Lord". According to Strong's Concordance the term "Lord" is used over 3000 times in the Old Testament, and almost all of them are references to God.

@@georgepenton808 Except the Gospels as we have them were not written until the middle to the end of the 2nd century A.D: stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates/

😂😂 it’s easier to fool people than to tell them they have been fooled

No they really don’t agree on it they actually disagree with what you said

Yeah, the issue is that just two years after this debate in the video Ehrman claimed the opposite in his "Did Jesus exist?" book where he totally misrepresented the mythicists he was smearing ... for example: Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel? freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/ Ehrman plays both sides of the fence to make money. Ehrman has ruined his own credibility. ; )

I’m assuming your a mythicist new atheism gave atheism a bad name, ask any atheist philosopher that and they’ll tell you new atheism is retarded. The God delusion was at best comedic, and breaking the spell, Daniel dennet used his normal tendency to repeat it and think he established it as fact. None of them deal with the actual intellectual side of Christianity

@@gabepearson6104 No, I'm not a mythicist, I'm an atheist. But until we have actual and unmistakable evidence of the existence of a god type being, outside of any Bronze Age, middle eastern creation stories, then the christian god belongs on the shelf with all the other man-made god myths. Your opinion on "The God Delusion" & "Breaking The Spell" is immaterial and quite pointless to make really, since it's just a biased, subjective viewpoint in the absence of any substantive arguments to show why. These "intellectual christians" are still ultimately arguing from a position of faith as they still have no evidence; so intellect really plays no meaningful part in them actually PROVING a case for their god's existence.

@@weskal5490 actually proofs of God have been offered and I’m inclined to think they are sound. As far as an argument for the God delusion being horrible, again ask any philosopher about that. Also Dawkins constantly misrepresents Aquinas on multiple occasions. Dennet misrepresents the cosmological argument. That’s one reason it’s horrible

@@gabepearson6104 Noted. Thank you for your input. Have a nice day.

@@weskal5490 you too

He assumes the existence of a historical Jesus as the basis of the fictional gospel stories. Although strangely, we don't assume the historical existence of other fictional demigods with similar magical powers, such as Hercules, Perseus, Ascelepius, Dionysus, etc. Ehrman promotes mythicism unintentionally. This is analogous to academics 50 years ago who assumed the existence of a historical Moses, although acknowledging that the stories of his exploits in the bible were fictional. The scholarly consensus regarding Moses has since changed, with most now considering him entirely mythical. Some think the Jesus assumption of today is heading the same direction.

even before roman empire adopted Christianity there were Christian texts

Everyone loose all common sense when it comes to religion..

Yawwwwn, Wiki is the source huhh, written and edited by and for Christian bigots. Highly respected Christian scholars disagree: "Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic" - F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement "...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories," 2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3 1. Metzger, HLS, 8. 2. Meier, II, 536. 3. Geisler, CA, 320. - Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, 259 Here's what non-biased scholars say about Jesus: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia ; )

It's a historical fact that Jesus existed, as stated in the book with the talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies...so you KNOW it must be a reliable source! What fool would question a book of ancient fairy tales written by anonymous religious fanatics?

@@mythbuster1483 The zombies were seen by many! It says there right in the book! Matthew 27:53 "...and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many." It must therefore be true! I have never once got someone who believes this to say anything coherent about how they imagine Mark, Luke, and John would find a zombie horde wandering through Jerusalem to be unworthy of mention.

+Tim, And we know this really happened because the other gospel writers confirm it! Oh, my bad, no one else mentions it. But other historians of the time confirm it! Oh, my bad, there's no record of this anywhere. But it's not like the other gospel writers or any pagan historians would've noticed *HORDES OF WALKING DEAD PEOPLE* wandering around Jerusalem, which would've been packed with Jews from all over the Roman empire attending the Passover festival. It's not like this would've been the GREATEST NEWS STORY IN ALL HUMAN HISTORY or anything. We know that an anonymous religious fanatic writing 60 years after the supposed events wouldn't lie about a story like this. In your face, unbelievers!

@@mythbuster1483 Actually, I was being unfair. In the modern zombie myth, zombieism is a biologically contagious disease and zombies like to eat non-zombie human flesh. The syndrome founded by Jesus is mentally contagious and the flesh eating is done with a sense of duty, not hunger. They only want to eat Jesus' flesh, or crackers when they can't get the real thing. Completely different. Hmm, that presentation of the opposing point of view turned out to be more hair-splitting than I expected.

M Goudsmits 金马桥 Bart is not a scientist.

M Goudsmits, What scientific method do you apply to claims about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies?

Dee well I wished I knew !

Uh this is history, we don’t use the scientific method in history. We use the historical method

@@gabepearson6104 Sorry it is not history! Based on the historical method which is a science of history method and scientific method when it deals with artifacts and aging etc. we now know that nothing was true. That all is based on mythology and most even from many cultures.

Here's what non-biased scholars tend to say about Jesus: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) ; )

+HeLiesToMankind, Only Christian fundamentalists make these claims. The texts you mention are highly suspect. The Josephus quote we have today is from a single manuscript from a Christian library curated by Eusebius in the 4th Century, and it is highly likely that Eusebius (a self-proclaimed liar for Jesus) forged this text. The Tacitus quote comes from a single manuscript from the 11th Century that was again preserved and hand-copied by Christians. Any honest investigator who looks into the history of early Christian texts--including the New Testament--will see rampant forgery and fraud. So even these references you mention are highly suspect. "At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries...Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds." Dr. Bart Ehrman, religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/ Dr. Bart Ehrman, says further: "there were about 100 forgeries created in the name of Jesus’ inner-circle during the first four centuries of the church." religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/

"All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century." ffrf.org/outreach/item/18412-debunking-the-historical-jesus

+HeLiesToMankind, Regarding the Tacitus reference, we don't have anything written by Tacitus. What we have is a SINGLE MANUSCRIPT containing the "chrestus" claim dated 1,000+ years after Jesus supposedly existed, which is a copy of a copy of a copy....etc. of a Tacitus manuscript. Do I trust Christians to have copied this accurately? No, why would I, when it's proven that they even inserted forgeries into their own gospel accounts (such as the ending of Mark, in which 'Jesus' supposedly tricks gullible followers into killing themselves by drinking deadly poison). There is convincing evidence of forgery, and I don't trust the source. The passage isn't corroborated, was never quoted by any of the church fathers, etc. As Dr. Ehrman states, "Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature is the degree to which it was forged...only two authors named themselves correctly in the surviving literature of the first Christian century. All other Christian writings are either anonymous, falsely ascribed (based on an original anonymity or homonymity), or forged." - Dr. Bart Ehrman ehrmanblog.org/it-has-arrived-forgery-and-counterforgery-in-early-christian-polemics/

Let me see if I understand your position correctly--and tell me if I misstate anything. You're saying that because we have some anonymous ancient books written by religious fanatics from 2,000 years ago that show evidence of forgery and fraud, we can be confident that stories are true about *Magic Demigod Jesus* who was his own father and impregnated his own virgin mother, and then cured blind people with magic saliva, killed a fig tree with ESP, caused 2000 pigs to kill themselves by casting demons into them, raised dead people, was then killed--triggering 3 hours of supernatural darkness and a zombie apocalype. *Magic Zombie Jesus* then rose from the dead, had people stick fingers in his holes, teleported into locked rooms, and then levitated bodily into outer space. Is that right? And I should believe those stories...why? Because virgin births and zombies are more likely than liars? I know that liars exist, but I have ZERO evidence of virgin births and zombies. Am I supposed to believe based on the credibility of the authors? Really? You know the names were tacked on by the church 100 years after the books were written, right?

There is a difference between Ehrman 1) admitting to the lack of historical records .. And 2) saying he is a mythicist.

The Caribbean nation should due England for its terrorism and indoctrination of Jesus.

All Christians should be somewhat familiar with textual criticism. It is my favorite subject on Christianity. Any Christians reading this should know our Lord God has the power to transmit his word throughout time unperverted. This is no different that what Muslims claim or Jews. Jewish textual critics have a lot of time to weed through, Muslims have the Uthmanic Revision and the large deaths of members of the Sahaba that had memorized the Quran fully before it was written down. Despite this, the three main Abrahamic religions recognize God has the power and authority to transmit his word throughout time unperverted. There are many Christian textual critics such as Dr. James White, that have used this area to STRENGTHEN their faith. I think all Christians should know the dating of the 4 Gospels, probable authors, manuscript data etc. In addition, earlier this week there was a document uncovered from 22-45 AD, speaking on one of the miracles Jesus performed to an eyewitness.

shamos999 I think you are referring to an article on a parody website. It is a false story.

***** It is from a parody website: worldnewsdailyreport.com/newly-found-document-holds-eyewitness-account-of-jesus-performing-miracle/

Sure I will acknowledge a lot of fake news get pumped out on the internet.. Lets say 100% the article is confirmed as false... It still changes nothing else that I have said

***** Then you do not realize the mainstream Christian stance on this subject. I didn't just wake up this morning and make that up. That is a long held belief by not only Christians, but also Jews and Muslims as well.. Muslims and Christians alone make up nearly half the entire human population of the planet. So yea, I believe this as well as a few billion other people on this planet.

It is when believers don't have any good evidence. 😉 How could any reasonable, educated person doubt stories written by anonymous religious fanatics that make absurd claims about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth and zombies?

LOL, no they are not misrepresenting Bart's position - the video is of Bart Ehrman in his own words just a couple years before he wrote his horrendous "Did Jesus Exist". Bart's arguments for a historical Jesus are embarrassingly bad but, Christians eat it up simply because it's what they want to hear. Just read the links in the info box. "The fact is that New Testament (NT) scholars are so narrowly focused on the NT they don't spend much time in comparative religion to investigate parallels, "borrowing" or syncretism from other pre-Christian religions. It's also significant that it's not a requirement for New Testament scholars or students to examine the case for mythicism or the Mythicist Position in order to receive a PhD. Don't believe us? Here it is straight from the horses mouth, Ehrman himself, one of the most well-known New Testament scholars: "Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement." --Dr. Bart Ehrman *Bart Ehrman also confesses on page two in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" that for 30 years he never even thought to consider to question the existence of Jesus as real historical character because it was a question that he "did not take seriously." Bart goes on to say: "I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus ... I was almost completely unaware - as are most of my colleagues in the field - of this body of skeptical literature."* Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel? freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/ ; )

I'm an atheist, and at this point I do think that Bart makes a pretty ok argument. Even oral tradition can be based in a small kernel of truth.

Just because an oral tradition CAN be based on a small kernel of truth doesn't mean it was in the case with Jesus. You assume too much. I'm also an atheist and very strongly feel that Bart Ehrman has ruined his own credibility with DJE. Ehrman maliciously smear Acharya S in his book, DJE and falsely accused her of making stuff up. Here's what Dr. Robert Price had to say about this issue regarding Bart Ehrman: “Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya’s works.” - Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’ Richard Carrier defended Acharya on this issue in the book too as well as across several of his own blogs: “At the very least I would expect Ehrman to have called the Vatican museum about this, and to have checked the literature on it, before arrogantly declaring no such object existed and implying Murdock made this up … She did not make that up. The reason this error troubles me is that it is indicative of the carelessness and arrogance Ehrman exhibits throughout this book … [Ehrman] often doesn’t check his facts, and clearly did little to no research. This makes the book extremely unreliable. A reader must ask, if he got this wrong, what other assertions in the book are false? And since making sure to get details like this right is the only useful purpose this book could have had, how can we credit this book as anything but a failure?” freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican/#comment-11233 Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel? freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/ Here's what non-biased scholars say about Jesus: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Rabbi: Did Jesus actually exist? freethoughtnation.com/rabbi-did-jesus-actually-exist/ "...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories," 2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3 1. Metzger, HLS, 8. 2. Meier, II, 536. 3. Geisler, CA, 320. - Who Was Jesus? 259 ; )

Orion Pleiades Orion Pleiades I didn't say that I personally am convinced that Jesus exists. You assumed what my final stance is... I just said that I think Bart makes an ok argument. Carrier, Crossan, and Price strike me as gnostic in their approach to history, however, so I'm not convinced of their stance either. Thanks for the information though!

If you think Ehrman makes a good argument for a HJ, then, I don't know what to tell you - his arguments are embarrassing. Ehrman is dishonest and misrepresented the mythicists arguments over and over again and even falsely accused some of making stuff up after having been proven wrong. You do yourself and other atheists no favors by sucking up the Ehrman kool-aid for Jesus.

No, Dr. Ehrman still assumes there was a historical Jesus behind the gospel fables.

@James Bringle do you know how big Galilee is? You could walk across it in a day. Also Roman historians thought the Jews were strange people. That would not report about Jesus until he made a significant impact. Also all the messianic figures from the first century we only know through Josephus and guess who Josephus mentions Jesus

@James Bringle also the argument he made was an argument from silence

@James Bringle how did my ability to think clearly get taken when I became a Christian? Also the argument I used was made by an atheist, so. If you seriously think Jesus didn’t exist then you are the one who cannot think clearly

@@gabepearson6104 "In over 20 passages throughout the canonical gospels claiming Jesus was famed far and wide not a single one has ever been substantiated with credible evidence. Jesus famed far and wide: "These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the Matthew 4:23-25, 5:1, 8:1, 8:18, 9:8, 9:31, 9:33, 9:36, 11:7, 12:15, 13:2, 14:1, 14:13, 14:22, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9, 26:55; Mark 1:28, 10:1; Luke: 4:14, 4:37, 5:15, 14:25, etc." - Who Was Jesus?, by Murdock, page 85 ; )

Here's what scholars who've studied the issue say: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia ; )

Orion Pleiades what do scholars who studied the issue have to say about what I asked above?

Orion Pleiades funny if the Jews reject what their own ancient historian records about Jesus, his brother and his cousin.

@@matthewjohnson2554 Looks like you were just plain wrong - Jesus never existed: "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman Historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip reference!" - Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar Christian scholars even admit: "...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories," 2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3 1. Metzger, HLS, 8. 2. Meier, II, 536. 3. Geisler, CA, 320. - Who Was Jesus? 259 Here's what non-biased scholars say about Jesus: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic" - F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement - Who Was Jesus? (WWJ), page 84 "...the stories of the creation, of the flood, of Abraham, of Jacob, of the descent into and the exodus from Egypt, of the career of Moses and the Jews in the desert, of Joshua and his soldiers, of the judges and their clients, are all apocryphal, and were fabricated at a late period of Jewish history." - Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver, page 9, quote from Dr. Inman "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) ; )

You have provided a list of quotes unrelated to my statement. Here's my post again. Do you have anything related to it that you'd like to say? ""There is no non-Christian evidence from the first century of a historical Jesus"? What then do you make of Josephus, a non-christian, publishing his 'Antiquities of the Jews' in the first century, within which he discusses the martyrdom of not only Jesus, but Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, and Jesus' brother, James???"

Anybody who actually watched the video understands that nobody called Bart Ehrman a mythicist and one can read this quote by simply reading the description box: "Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement." -- Dr. Bart Ehrman Bart Ehrman also confesses on page two in his book, "Did Jesus Exist?," that for 30 years he never even thought to consider to question the existence of Jesus as real historical character because it was a question that he "did not take seriously." The problem with Bart Ehrman is that he has ruined his own credibility by trying to play all sides of the fence be very disingenuous ... for money. Ehrman has been caught repeatedly being dishonest about mythicism and misrepresent their arguments and case. Ehrman even admits he and most New Testament scholars know nothing about mythicism for christ sakes - HELL-O. These are not characteristics of trusted scholars. Ehrman has embarrassed himself and all New Testament "scholars" demonstrating that they have no intention of ever being honest about the fact that Jesus never existed. "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman Historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip reference!" - Bart Ehrman Christian scholars even admit: "...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories," 2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3 1. Metzger, HLS, 8. 2. Meier, II, 536. 3. Geisler, CA, 320. - Who Was Jesus? 259 "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic" - F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement - Who Was Jesus? by Murdock, page 84 "The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres." Dr. John Dominic Crossan - Who Was Jesus? by Murdock, 24 "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) ; )

@@donotcare44 so you agree? cheers

@@danielmartini3229 And what is the EVIDENCE for the supposed historical Jesus? Dr. Ehrman says "the bible is full of lies", calls the gospel stories "fabricated accounts", and that many New Testament books are "forgeries built on lies." www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html So why should be believe claims based on a book that is "full of lies"?

qazzy 😂😂😂😂😭😭😭

Says who? Even more honest Christian scholars disagree with you: "...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories," 2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3 1. Metzger, HLS, 8. 2. Meier, II, 536. 3. Geisler, CA, 320. - Who Was Jesus? 259 by Murdock "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman Historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip reference!" - Bart Ehrman "The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres." Dr. John Dominic Crossan - Who Was Jesus? 24 by Murdock "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) : )

Unfortunately for you, they all are. You need to accept facts.

+Peter Metcalfe josephus (TF) is just an account of jesus, not confirmation of jesus. josephus merely wrote down what people said, he never investigated their claim.

Considering that any one who as done basic research know that the Josephus reference is a clear forgery , i suggest you look up Richard Carrier , he debunks Ehrman and shows how all the Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius for what they are Christian ad-dons way after the facts.

Mike Liberty I recommend Carrier too and Robert M Price and David Fitzgerald.

***** when you're right, you're right.

Like i always said he is a sheep in wolfes clothing , DM Murdock , Richard Carrier , even Laurence Krauss have ridiculed this guy , in my opinion he is not an ATHEIST he is still a Theist but he is masquerading as an Atheist to try to make people think Jesus was a real person.

And the bible would never preach hate, right? "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

He assumes the existence of a historical Jesus as the basis of the fictional gospel stories. Although strangely, we don't assume the historical existence of other fictional demigods with similar magical powers, such as Hercules, Perseus, Ascelepius, Dionysus, etc. Ehrman promotes mythicism unintentionally. This is analogous to academics 50 years ago who assumed the existence of a historical Moses, although acknowledging that the stories of his exploits in the bible were fictional. The scholarly consensus regarding Moses has since changed, with most now considering him entirely mythical. Some think the Jesus assumption of today is heading the same direction.

Dee Bunker It doesn't even make sense for Jews to make up Jesus. They expected the messiah to be a war hero. Jesus died in the most shameful way possible. So many historical sources support the historical Jesus.

Dee Bunker kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p6-UdrWS08C-qas.html

+Sage, Really, you're going to direct me to a Bart Ehrman video! Yeah, he really backs up the credibility of your fictional gospel stories, right? Dr. Ehrman says specifically that THE BIBLE IS FULL OF LIES: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: *Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle* - Peter, Paul or James - knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, *that is a lie* , and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery." - Dr. Bart Ehrman, PhD, New Testament Scholar www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html A book full of lies and forgeries is your 'evidence' for Jesus? LOL! Very convincing.

+Sage, You said, "It doesn't even make sense for Jews to make up Jesus." Sure, it's not like LIARS would ever make up fake stories about a demigod with magical powers, right? Well, except for Hercules, Perseus, Ascelepius, Dionysus, etc. But we assume they are all based on actual, historical figures, right? Oh, not we don't...I forgot! The only demigod we ASSUME was actually historical is the one traditionally worshiped in our particular culture. What a coincidence! LOL! Claims aren't evidence of anything, and claims by liars are called lies.

***** LOL, well you really make yourself look silly here. Your comment might have had more merit but since this clip of Bart Ehrman came from the Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate in 3/31/2010 - over 5 years ago and since Bart Ehrman has since written a book taking the complete opposite position in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" (DJE, 2012) it reveals your biases, bigotry and utter ignorance are as transparent as glass. It doesn't even seem like you watched this video because it is actually exposing Bart Ehrman for doing the opposite of what you claim as Ehrman used to be at least somewhat skeptical of Christian claims but then, in DJE he does a flip-flop apparently to make money from stupid Christians are always looking for confirmation bias to help them feel better about there being no credible evidence to support their claims about Jesus. All you needed to do was read the links in the info box. Over 80 Rebuttals to Bart Ehrman's Anti-Mythicist Book 'Did Jesus Exist?' www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=29444#p29444 ; )

Hercules2345 Sounds like you took the same escape clause.

***** LOL, make it up however you need to, typical Christian makes a *HUGE ERROR* and refuses to acknowledge it. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Hercules2345 You don't even know what his positions are. Listen to his work with the Teaching Company. He has always believed that Christ existed. HUGE ERROR on your part. Bart is just getting tired of the low information knuckleheads dragging him down with them so he clearly stated his position in his "Did Jesus Exist." Typical that you missed that. Still inside that escape clause, I see.

***** LOL, it's funny to watch you try to squirm your way out of your huge error but, it's too late: rockhound570 theist: "Bart Ehrman seems to have decided to throw away his faith for the money ride. Capitalizing on post modern angst and the shallow thinking of many of the bored nones. Just giving them what they crave. And making himself a portly millionaire along the way. Every time I see him and listen to him I just get the creepy feeling that this guy is plummeting from honesty into a textured and nuanced set of rationalizations to just keep the money pouring in. Not enough that he's angry about having lost his own faith..." Contrast that comment with your recent comment for a good laugh: rockhound570 theist: "He has always believed that Christ existed." Again, from my first comment here: "LOL, well you really make yourself look silly here. Your comment might have had more merit but since this clip of Bart Ehrman came from the Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate in 3/31/2010 - over 5 years ago and since Bart Ehrman has since written a book taking the complete opposite position in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" (DJE, 2012) ... this video is actually exposing Bart Ehrman for doing the opposite of what you claim as Ehrman used to be at least somewhat skeptical of Christian claims but then, in DJE he does a flip-flop apparently to make money from stupid Christians who are always looking for confirmation bias to help them feel better about there being no credible evidence to support their claims about Jesus." I know what his position(s) are because I've read his books and even own some. You are simply trying to pretend you know much more than you really do and you got busted. All you needed to do was read the quotes and links in the info box: "Bart Ehrman also confesses on page two in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" that for 30 years he never even thought to consider to question the existence of Jesus as real historical character because it was a question that he "did not take seriously." Bart goes on to say: "I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus ... I was almost completely unaware - as are most of my colleagues in the field - of this body of skeptical literature."" "Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement." --Dr. Bart Ehrman freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18804#p18804 LOL, so Bart reveals that he and most of his New Testament colleagues "knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement" and are completely unaware of "an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus." Bart is just out to make money. "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Albert Einstein So you made a mistake - you only make it worse by pretending otherwise but, I won't hold it against you since Bart tries to play both sides of the fence. Now, actually watch the full video and read all the links in the info box. ; )

Here's what non-biased scholars tend to say about Jesus: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) ; )

Orion Pleiades Nonsense! No scholar holds that Tacitus or Suetonius are not genuine. The only one that is considered a later interpolation is Josephus and that's because they believe the comment is not something a believing "Jew" would say. Which btw is not evidence. In fact, there is zero evidence of any interpolations! None ZIP! It's all conjecture! There is NO EVIDENCE period and no reason to suspect it other than confirmation bias. Speaking of Josephus. Jesus is mentioned twice and only one section is consider to be a later christian interpolation. But without a doubt they acknowledge Josephus said something about Jesus in this passage (they cannot destroy the entire contents of his works to say otherwise) but only believe it. Even if we grant that belief which is utterly nonsensical to do. But even if we grant that without any evidence besides an anecdotal one then the evidence to believe Jesus existed and the recordings of the things he said and taught are far more compelling based on evidence logic and reason. Simply put the evidence itself outweighs the criticism against him. The vast majority of historical scholars believe there is some "Q" document which originally contained all of Jesus sayings. That's what vast majority of scholars believe and they believe that without evidence yet again because none of them doubt where these sayings came from and for several good reasons which I can point out. As far quoting from The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. It's worth a crock of shit. And as far as you statement. ""I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Counter apologetic nonsense. It's like a bachelor trying to convince a married man he should divorce his wife because he is a bachelor with respect to every other woman but he simply goes one step further and doesn't marry his wife. It's nonsense and the argument just assumes there is no good reason to get married. The same counter is the same. When will you skeptics realize that the only argument you actually have that isn't ad hoc is the "argument from hiddenness". Which honestly isn't that power and is weak when we consider matters of probability. The mere fact that if atheism is true life is absurd! If atheism is true it doesn't matter what anybody believes. If your behavior ultimately has no impact on your destiny then you might as well do whatever you please! That means it ultimately does not matter if your a famous scientist or you believe in unicorns. It also means your moral behavior is ultimately absurd. It means whether you murder or love someone is morally equivalent! Atheism is absurd and 100 times worse than any religion on the planet.

supermandefender "No scholar holds that Tacitus or Suetonius are not genuine" LOL, I guess you're unaware of the fact that neither Tacitus nor Suetonius mentioned the name "Jesus" as they only referred to a "Christ" and there were many Christ's at the time. Plus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus were born after Jesus's supposed death so, they never met Jesus and nobody - no historian or scholar ever mentioned the biblical Jesus while he was alive and it appears nobody mentioned him for nearly a century or more and the "first time anybody refers to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by name is Irenaeus in the year 180." Quote: "The truth may not be what you were taught, but if it's true, you should believe it, not run from it! As I studied more and more, using my intelligence as an evangelical but also praying about it, I became convinced that the New Testament gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or by people who knew eyewitnesses. The first point to make is the rather obvious one that the gospels don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses. They are all anonymous. The titles in your gospels - the Gospel According to Matthew and so forth - were added by later editors. They were not put there by the original authors. Second point, none of the gospels claims to be written by the person whose name it bears. They don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses, and they don't claim to be written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Those are later traditions that were added to the gospels. These traditions do not start appearing for about 100 years. Some people think that there is an early Church father named Papias who attests to the witness of Mark and Matthew, but in fact there are very solid reasons for thinking that Papias, who lived around the year 120-140, is not referring to OUR Mark or OUR Matthew. The first time anybody refers to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by name is Irenaeus in the year 180. But the unfortunate thing about Jesus is that we have such scanty documentation about his life. Most people don't realize this, but Jesus is never mentioned in any Greek or Roman non-Christian source until 80 years after his death. There is no record of Jesus having lived, in these sources. In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!" - Bart Ehrman 2010, New Testament scholar Quote Josephus just doesn't, in any way whatsoever, prove Jesus existed, however it does show how desperate Christians are for being so reliant upon the flimsiest of "evidence" that all turns out to be quite thoroughly debunked. Josephus mentioned about 19 Jesus's and it turns out that none can be demonstrated to be the biblical Jesus. You'll also need to explain why nobody BEFORE the dishonest Christian forger Eusebius (4th century) found the passage? It would've been the biggest thing in all of non-Christian literature yet they knew nothing about it. What's funny is, even if the TF was authentic, it's useless because Josephus writing around 100CE wasn't an eyewitness. First of all, Josephus (37-100 CE) was born after Jesus' supposed death so he clearly was not an eye witness. Not a single writer before the 4th century - not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. - in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words. I'll provide a quote from Acharya's book WWJ: "One argument for the authenticity of the Testimonium as a whole contends that, since it is present in all existing copies of Josephus's Antiquities, it must have been in the original. This assertion sounds good, until it is realized that there are no extant Greek copies of the Antiquities that predate the 9th to 11th century (depending on the source), that all of these copies were made by Christians, and that all of them evidently were based on a single text. Regarding this argument that all copies of Josephus contain the TF, Meier cautions, "These facts must be balanced, however, by the sobering realization that we have only three Greek manuscripts of Book 18 of The Antiquities, the earliest which dates from the 11th century."1 Moreover, the text of the TF differs significantly in an Arabic copy of the Antiquities, while an "old Russian" or Slavonic edition of the TF-which Meier calls a "clearly unauthentic text"2-appears not in the Antiquities but in Josephus's Jewish War. These facts tend to cast suspicion on the authenticity of the TF as a whole." - Who Was Jesus? page 89 "...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition." - John P. Meier - Who Was Jesus? page 86 * Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, Catholic priest and monsignor Come back not with juvenile arguments but credible evidence to substantiate your claims for a historical biblical Jesus. You would be famous for being the very first person to ever do so as even the first Christians couldn't. I'm sure Jesus would give you a gold star and a sucker for doing what he couldn't do, provide valid evidence. At this point, you're just going in circles - either provide valid evidence or just admit you have none. "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) ; )

A number of scholars consider this passage to be a forgery: "Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect." The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44 booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15700720-12341171

What Christian apologists don't tell you about the Tacitus quote: 1. The verse comes from a *SINGLE* manuscript that was hand-copied by Christian scribes and 'discovered' in medieval times, during a period of rampant forgery and fraud, when the Catholic church was paying large sums for religious relics and documents to bolster the claims of Christianity. As Rev. Robert Taylor states, "It then rests entirely upon the fidelity of a single individual; and he, having the ability, the opportunity, and the strongest possible incitement of interest to induce him to introduce the interpolation." 2. This verse is NEVER cited by Church Fathers, not by Tertullian--who extensively quotes the works of Tacitus--and not even by Eusebius, the church historian, although it would've been very useful to them. There is no mention of this quote anywhere prior to the 15th century...showing that it was clearly forged. 3. Tacitus NEVER mentions Christians anywhere else in his voluminous works, despite the claim of a "great number" of Christians in Rome who were such a threat to the empire that they had the power to torch Rome itself. 4. Nero's alleged persecution of Christians for the fire of Rome in this single paragraph in Tacitus is not mentioned by other historians of the time, and is contradicted by their accounts. 5. The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus Is the above what we'd expect to see if the paragraph was a forged interpolation into the text? Yes.

I think he's just very passionate about his subject.

You'd be angry too if you realized you spent 10 years of your life studying a book in college that you were taught was true as a child that turns out to be total BS!!!

He used to be a fundamentalist evangelical preacher. That's how they talk.

Here's what scholars who've studied the issue say: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia ; )

Orion Pleiades does that excerpt from the Jewish encyclopedia have anything to do with my comment on what Bart Erhman said?

@@matthewjohnson2554 "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman Historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip reference!" - Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar Christian scholars even admit: "...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories," 2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3 1. Metzger, HLS, 8. 2. Meier, II, 536. 3. Geisler, CA, 320. - Who Was Jesus? 259 Here's what non-biased scholars say about Jesus: "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic" - F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement - Who Was Jesus? (WWJ), page 84 "...the stories of the creation, of the flood, of Abraham, of Jacob, of the descent into and the exodus from Egypt, of the career of Moses and the Jews in the desert, of Joshua and his soldiers, of the judges and their clients, are all apocryphal, and were fabricated at a late period of Jewish history." - Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver, page 9, quote from Dr. Inman "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) ; )

Let me use the bible to verify its own story. Hmmm.. seems kinda dumb if u ask me. Its like believing the f.b.i. can investigate itself and b unbias and proclaim itself innocent of corruption and we just believe them. 😐

@@Castlecoke It appears you consider internal attestation as biased and logically circular, but do you see that I am responding specifically to ehrmans claim? He says the gospel accounts don't contain internal attestation, but he knows they do. He knows the verses I quoted in Luke and John, and he knows they are internal attestations. He is a new testament scholar, he obviously knows these verses. He is simply lying because he has dedicated his life to opposing the Christian message of hope and salvation through Jesus.

The Tacitus reference is a Christian forgery, just like most of the books in your New Testament: "But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that *the Bible is full of lies* , even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: *Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle* - Peter, Paul or James - knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, *that is a lie* , and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery." - Dr. Bart Ehrman, PhD, New Testament Scholar www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

I believe that there were Christians in 64 AD. Paul started writing in 50-something AD, so he was one and I would not be surprised if he recruited a few more in ten years. There should be almost no controversy about that - the people claiming Paul didn't exist are very rare. You need to claim that Tacitus made claims about a historical Jesus that weren't hearsay from Christians, but you didn't.

+Tim Freeman, The problem is that you have no evidence to substantiate your claim. There may well have been Christians in Rome in 64 CE...but we don't have any mention of them. As I'm sure you're aware, the Tacitus reference is of 'Chrestians', not 'Christians'...and it may have been altered by forgery, since our earliest version is dated from the 11th Century and it was never quoted by anyone prior to that time. Regarding Paul's existence...he isn't actually a historical figure. When you seek out evidence of Paul...you find nothing. You have to ASSUME that the 7 out of 13 of his letters considered 'authentic' are not forgeries themselves. Just because they appear to have been written by the same hand doesn't make the author's claim to be Paul, real. What's our earliest manuscript of any of Paul's letters? What is the earliest quote of any of Paul's letters by any of the early Christian fathers? Is there any contemporary eyewitness to Paul's existence? After someone lies to you over and over, its reasonable to subject their claims to extreme skepticism. Regarding the Tacitus 'Chrestians' reference, in his 'The Lives of the Caesars', Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4). There may have been something similar on Tacitus that was added on to by a Christian scribe, thinking the 'Chrestus' was Jesus. But no other Roman historian mentions such an event, Pliny, a Roman governor writing in 112 CE, knows nothing about Christians, which seems highly unusual if they were powerful enough to burn down Rome in 64 CE and were extensively persecuted by the Roman Emperor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians Let me know if you disagree with any of the above.

@@mythbuster1483 Can you point at an early Christian who in your opinion did exist? Do you think any Christians exist now? Jesus fits the Rank-Raglan hero type and many of those characters didn't exist. However, Paul didn't do anything special except allegedly build a church, and we do know that church was built. So we should be much more willing to believe in Paul than Jesus. Edit - maybe your point is Christians existing in Rome, not Christians existing. Hmm, I may have to come back and edit this more.

+Tim Freeman, My point is simply when you examine what we ACTUALLY KNOW, as opposed to what we assume, you get a very different picture. We make a lot of assumptions regarding the tales told in the gospels and Paul's letters, but let's see what we actually know: 1. We have none of the manuscripts of the original authors, only manuscripts by Christian scribes dated hundreds of years after the supposed events. 2. The vast majority of early Christian writings are forgeries (see www.earlychristianwritings.com/ and note how many apocryphal books are supposedly written by Peter or Paul, for instance). 3. Half of the books in the New Testament are considered to be forgeries, with many others are simply anonymous and given bogus author's names to give them false apostolic authority. 4. Many books in the New Testament are proven to contain forgeries and fraud inserted AFTER our earliest complete manuscripts, which are dated to 350 CE. 5. We have no idea how much forgery and fraud occurred PRIOR to our earliest complete manuscripts--meaning that for 300+ years, dishonest copyists had free reign to alter these books. 6. The gospel stories contain many absurd, supernatural stories that are MOST LIKELY lies. 7. Nearly half of the letters claimed to be written by Paul in the New Testament are considered forgeries by the majority of biblical scholars. 8. Paul is not actually a historical figure, and our only information about him is in the books that bear his name, which could've been written by someone who claimed to be Paul. Again, this isn't a crazy conspiracy theory, but a common practice of the time. Given the above, are we justified in being skeptical about ASSUMPTIONS regarding the historicity of the characters described in the books above? I would say, "Yes, clearly". That's an opinion, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If someone claims a historical Paul...where is there evidence? Where is any independent corroboration? In fact, the evidence is incredibly poor even for claims about a historical Jesus. Those who make such claims can't prove them, they can only offer assumptions and manuscripts written by Christian scribes dated hundreds of years after the supposed events that are hearsay at best and forgeries at worst. Given the rampant evidence of fiction, forgery and fraud, I don't trust any of the claims made by New Testament authors. What can we verify?

Make it up however you need to as every claim you've made has already been thoroughly debunked. They proclaim "oral traditions" even when there were none. It's all just special pleading for Jesus. Josephus mentioned around 19 different Jesus's and *NONE* turn out to be the biblical Jesus. Paul was not any eyewitness of Jesus - never met him. Highly respected 30-year scholars as Catholics, Evangelicals and Agnostics and Jewish scholars all concede there's no credible evidence for the biblical Jesus: "The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres." - Dr. John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at DePaul University in Chicago "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman Historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip reference!" - Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, Agnostic "Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic" - F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement, Who Was Jesus? by Murdock, page 84 "...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories," 2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3 1. Metzger, HLS, 8. 2. Meier, II, 536. 3. Geisler, CA, 320. - Who Was Jesus? by Murdock, page 259 "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth." - The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "...the stories of the creation, of the flood, of Abraham, of Jacob, of the descent into and the exodus from Egypt, of the career of Moses and the Jews in the desert, of Joshua and his soldiers, of the judges and their clients, are all apocryphal, and were fabricated at a late period of Jewish history." - Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver, by Murdock page 9, quote from Dr. Inman "The Mythicist case has been rebutted? Really? When did that happen? The arguments of the Mythicist camp have never been refuted - they have only been steadfastly ignored." "...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years." - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Historian, Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71)

+binslick1964 look at dr.Erham`s view on this subject :)

+kur vgazati Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel? freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-caught-in-lies-and-libel/

Yes never a good reason for believing something

"No matter what evidence is shown "- ofc that`s the case...it`s good to see somebody that is at least honest with his position...

what evidence? it is the new atheists who questioned the evidence as many new atheists don't want Jesus to be historical and try to find ways of supporting that

Bart Ehrman actually argued that Nazareth was discovered. See this in the debate against Robert M. Price. Ehrman says Price is wrong for raising that argument.

Keith Carter calm down nobody is gonna believe you, its already a historical fact that Jesus existed, source From wikipedia Jesus: Most modern scholars consider Jesus' baptism to be a definite historical fact, along with his crucifixion.[7] Theologian James D.G. Dunn states that they "command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus

Keith, Bart believes Nazareth did exist. .If it's a fairy tale why were there Christians in Rome as early as 64 AD? This was at a time when some witnesses to Jesus were still alive in Jerusalem.

Where's your evidence of Christians in Rome in 64 CE? Not the Tacitus reference? "Historicists often will reference the famous Annals of Tacitus, the Roman historian, for evidence of the existence of Jesus. However, even John P. Meier, author of “A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus” and a historicist, admits: “As with Josephus, so with Tacitus our observations must be tempered by the fact that the earliest manuscript of the Annals comes from the 11th century.” Dr. Hector Avalos, www.amestrib.com/sections/opinion/columns/hector-avalos-who-was-the-historical-jesus.html The word "Christians" has been proven to have been altered in the text, which originally said "Chrestians". Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "useful, good of its kind, serviceable". www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrhsto%5Cs&la=greek&can=xrhsto%5Cs0&prior=fu/sei See also: www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5543&t=RSV A number of scholars consider this passage to be a forgery: "Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect." The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44 booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15700720-12341171

Regarding the Tacitus 'Chrestus' reference, what Christian apologists don't tell you: 1. The verse comes from a SINGLE manuscript that was hand-copied by Christian scribes and 'discovered' in medieval times, during a period of rampant forgery and fraud, when the Catholic church was paying large sums for religious relics and documents to bolster the claims of Christianity. As Rev. Robert Taylor states, "It then rests entirely upon the fidelity of a single individual; and he, having the ability, the opportunity, and the strongest possible incitement of interest to induce him to introduce the interpolation." 2. This verse is NEVER cited by Church Fathers, not by Tertullian--who extensively quotes the works of Tacitus--and not even by Eusebius, the church historian, although it would've been very useful to them. There is no mention of this quote anywhere prior to the 15th century. 3. Tacitus NEVER mentions Christians anywhere else in his voluminous works, despite the claim of a "great number" of Christians in Rome who were such a threat to the empire that they had the power to torch Rome itself. 4. Nero's alleged persecution of Christians for the fire of Rome in this single paragraph in Tacitus is not mentioned by other historians of the time, and is contradicted by their accounts. 5. The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus. Is the above what we'd expect to see if the paragraph was a forged interpolation into the text? Yes.