The Polycarp problem

Some biblical scholars make the excuse that the Exodus was not recorded in Egyptian history because Pharoah and 250,000 of his men plus horses, Chariots, and all of the gear were swallowed by the Red Sea and no one was left to return to tell the story.
Yet, the bodies of whichever Pharaoh the scholars want to argue was the Pharoah at the time are all mummified and whereabouts are known.
There is no Egyptian record of all the first born being killed or dying mysteriously.
The is no evidence that corroborates an Exodus of the magnitude as told in the Bible anywhere outside of of the Bible.

Why do you guys think that using the bible to prove the bible "works" when the earliest stories all the way through to the last are at the least suspect and mostly shown to be false outside of the bible?
I am looking forward to the evidence, which has now been elevated to Overwhelming, that answers my questions.
 
everyone has heard of Akhenaten, I am not sure what this has to do with starting outside the Bible.

Prove the earth is a sphere these guys don't believe it is.
https://www.tfes.org/
Some things exist both inside and outside of the bible. Other things exist nowhere else but inside the bible.
If you heard of Akhenaten then you will see how the authors of biblical stories have taken events and people outside of the bible and have changed them to suit.
If all you absorbed from that link that it was about Akhenaten , who was mentioned in the first few sentences and then the article went far beyond talking about him then I seriously question that you read much farther and why you are wondering as to why you think I used Akhenaten as my example of. I used the entire article had you bothered to read it.

The last paragraph of the article.
In the final analysis, attributing Moses to a specific person, or even determining which specific Pharaoh was involved may always be a matter of speculation. To the modern reader, the biblical Moses seems to oscillate between tradition and reality, and more secure historical knowledge is probably not possible, at least at present.. And though an Exodus could have taken place, the specific details recorded in the Bible largely fall outside the sphere of probability, given the silence of any Egyptian record.

Your answer to me asking you to provide Overwhelming evidence is to ask me to prove to flat earthers that the Earth is a sphere?
To me that sounds like you are admitting that some believers do not acknowledge facts in favor of what they want to believe.
 
Last edited:
Then you need to read it. It is about his journey as an investigative reporter, from atheism to belief.
If you can post the overwhelming evidence either from that Book or elsewhere we can save a lot of time and continue on with this discussion of evidence in the bible being corroborated outside of the bible.
Being that the evidence is stated to be overwhelming, why isn't anyone posting it?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Providing evidence of Jesus and Biblical happenings outside of the bible of any sort let alone Overwhelming is always a thread killer.
Why is the truth so hard to provide?
 

Madman

Senior Member
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjATegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw1yqTk41sNCfom-S2dsvU9W

YouTube › watch
Bart Ehrman & Robert Price Debate - Did Jesus Exist - YouTube

BBVA Openmind › science › di...
Web results
Did Jesus of Nazareth actually exist? The evidence says yes | OpenMind

The Guardian › world › apr › w...
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died? | World news ...

Bethinking › jesus › did-jesus-exist
Did Jesus Exist? - bethinking.org
 
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman_book)&ved=2ahUKEwir4N2CmtXnAhXHUt8KHVOqABAQFjATegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw1yqTk41sNCfom-S2dsvU9W

YouTube › watch
Bart Ehrman & Robert Price Debate - Did Jesus Exist - YouTube

BBVA Openmind › science › di...
Web results
Did Jesus of Nazareth actually exist? The evidence says yes | OpenMind

The Guardian › world › apr › w...
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died? | World news ...

Bethinking › jesus › did-jesus-exist
Did Jesus Exist? - bethinking.org
So Ehrman uses the writings of Paul, which are IN the bible to make his case that Jesus existed.
HERE is my statement above:
Providing evidence of Jesus and Biblical happenings outside of the bible of any sort let alone Overwhelming is always a thread killer.
Why is the truth so hard to provide?
Madman, you and others claim Jesus to be THE SON OF GOD, ONE AND ONLY. And the link you provide says that Paul knew Jesus's brother and, AND then Bart goes on to say
"The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies – and so if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah," he says. "You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies."
Jesus did not overthrow the enemies.
Someone who was tortured, humiliated and killed by their enemies absolutely would not and could not have been The Messiah.
Madman YOU are making a strong case that Jesus was just an embellished man...which is what many of us have always said in here anyway.
According to the Jews who have followed the code/rules/prophecies since the beginning of their religion..the facts that Jesus was tortured, humiliated and killed by the enemies DOES NOT FULFILL PROPHECY and DOES NOT ALLOW JESUS to be a "lesser and weaker" Messiah let alone THE MESSIAH.
Basically what Bart is saying is that a guy like Jesus probably (LIKELY using his own word) existed, his works were embellished, he was tortured, humiliated and killed by his enemies, he was NOT the Messiah and again....Mentioned nowhere outside of the bible in any ways by anybody that would lend credence to Jesus being anything special let alone THE SON OF GOD.

Regarding your 2nd link:
To the objection that there are no contemporary Roman records of Jesus' existence, Ehrman points out that such records exist for almost no one and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the Crucifixion of Jesus.
"They exist for almost No One..."
I believe that. I expect that for the average every day run of the mill Joe Schmo. But Ehrman says almost no one. And he is right because records DO exist for fairly important people that provide detailed information which is backed up by many historical sources of many differentiating backgrounds of Friend and Foe alike.
Wasn't THE SON OF GOD at least equal to those others who WERE recorded?
Ehrman then goes on to say that Roman sources did write of Jesus within decades and then does not cite even ONE source!
The author states that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul LIKELY personally knew James, the brother of Jesus.[2] Although the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be BIASED and UNRELIABLE in many respects, Ehrman writes, they and the sources behind them which scholars have discerned still contain some accurate historical information.
Above is what YOU provided!!
And then the best from your own link!!
Many specific points by Ehrman concentrate on what may be regarded as the 'embarrassments' and 'failures' of the various depictions of Jesus Christ found in the gospels and the works of Paul which point to an account based on a real person that got embellished rather than a completely made up figure. He notes that Jews in the first century AD expected their Messiah to come from Bethlehem while Jesus is described as growing up in Nazareth, a dilemma that is simply not addressed in the Gospel of Mark (which has no nativity account) even though it is regarded as the earliest gospel. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas is another example, as critics of early Christianityfound it strange that the Messiah would display the lack of personal awareness and foresight even to keep his close followers in line. Ehrman states that such things would make sense for a historical Jesus whom multiple people believed grew up, lived, and died in a certain time and place versus a purely mythological figure with malleable personal details
So again to sum it up. A person with the qualities of an extremely human "jesus" probably existed in biblical times(shock, there were dozens if not hundreds if not more) and by the authors opinion of the link(s) you provided "jesus" was not divine and not the Messiah and went virtually unnoticed outside of the bible BECAUSE he was NOT a god nor the son of any god.

Basically you have conceded that roughly a 5'5" short haired, bearded(maybe), brown eyed, olive skinned Jerry Nadler type (tho I'd guess in better physical shape) likely existed roughly 1,987+ years ago, he had a brother named James that some other guy knew, he was an ordinary human that did not fit the requirements to be the Messiah nor fulfill them, he is historically unmentioned(given his claimed credentials by believers and compared to many other recorded figures who are mere humans) outside of a biased and unreliable book(according to your source)...and you worship him.
 
Last edited:
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman_book)&ved=2ahUKEwir4N2CmtXnAhXHUt8KHVOqABAQFjATegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw1yqTk41sNCfom-S2dsvU9W

YouTube › watch
Bart Ehrman & Robert Price Debate - Did Jesus Exist - YouTube

BBVA Openmind › science › di...
Web results
Did Jesus of Nazareth actually exist? The evidence says yes | OpenMind

The Guardian › world › apr › w...
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died? | World news ...

Bethinking › jesus › did-jesus-exist
Did Jesus Exist? - bethinking.org
After the 1st two links, the others are just headlines. If you care to make them links I will read them.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
After the 1st two links, the others are just headlines. If you care to make them links I will read them.
I'm guessing that Christians view "Jesus" as the son of God, miracle worker etc. and therefore proof of his existence = proof of him being the son of God, a miracle worker etc etc.
Of course proof of his existence doesnt prove anything other than he existed but Christians view it as a "package deal".
Like you, I dont doubt a "Jesus type" figure existed.
Being the son of God, performing miracles, feeding 5000 with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish etc...... is a whole different ball game.
 
I'm guessing that Christians view "Jesus" as the son of God, miracle worker etc. and therefore proof of his existence = proof of him being the son of God, a miracle worker etc etc.
Of course proof of his existence doesnt prove anything other than he existed but Christians view it as a "package deal".
Like you, I dont doubt a "Jesus type" figure existed.
Being the son of God, performing miracles, feeding 5000 with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish etc...... is a whole different ball game.
Agreed and according to Madman's star source, Bart Ehrman (who I like as an author), 99.99% of the worlds population that has ever been alive go relatively unnoticed throughout history. The .01% that get noticed is because they stood out from the rest. Being the SON of GOD should be the top of that .01%.
Outside of the bible there is as much proof as any one of us as there is of Jesus. And according to Ehrman, it is because Jesus existed ordinarily .
 

Madman

Senior Member
So Ehrman uses the writings of Paul, which are IN the bible to make his case that Jesus existed.
HERE is my statement above:

Madman, you and others claim Jesus to be THE SON OF GOD, ONE AND ONLY. And the link you provide says that Paul knew Jesus's brother and, AND then Bart goes on to say

Jesus did not overthrow the enemies.
Someone who was tortured, humiliated and killed by their enemies absolutely would not and could not have been The Messiah.
Madman YOU are making a strong case that Jesus was just an embellished man...which is what many of us have always said in here anyway.
According to the Jews who have followed the code/rules/prophecies since the beginning of their religion..the facts that Jesus was tortured, humiliated and killed by the enemies DOES NOT FULFILL PROPHECY and DOES NOT ALLOW JESUS to be a "lesser and weaker" Messiah let alone THE MESSIAH.
Basically what Bart is saying is that a guy like Jesus probably (LIKELY using his own word) existed, his works were embellished, he was tortured, humiliated and killed by his enemies, he was NOT the Messiah and again....Mentioned nowhere outside of the bible in any ways by anybody that would lend credence to Jesus being anything special let alone THE SON OF GOD.

Regarding your 2nd link:

"They exist for almost No One..."
I believe that. I expect that for the average every day run of the mill Joe Schmo. But Ehrman says almost no one. And he is right because records DO exist for fairly important people that provide detailed information which is backed up by many historical sources of many differentiating backgrounds of Friend and Foe alike.
Wasn't THE SON OF GOD at least equal to those others who WERE recorded?
Ehrman then goes on to say that Roman sources did write of Jesus within decades and then does not cite even ONE source!

Above is what YOU provided!!
And then the best from your own link!!

So again to sum it up. A person with the qualities of an extremely human "jesus" probably existed in biblical times(shock, there were dozens if not hundreds if not more) and by the authors opinion of the link(s) you provided "jesus" was not divine and not the Messiah and went virtually unnoticed outside of the bible BECAUSE he was NOT a god nor the son of any god.

Basically you have conceded that roughly a 5'5" short haired, bearded(maybe), brown eyed, olive skinned Jerry Nadler type (tho I'd guess in better physical shape) likely existed roughly 1,987+ years ago, he had a brother named James that some other guy knew, he was an ordinary human that did not fit the requirements to be the Messiah nor fulfill them, he is historically unmentioned(given his claimed credentials by believers and compared to many other recorded figures who are mere humans) outside of a biased and unreliable book(according to your source)...and you worship him.
You have to stick to the topic, you begin with that topic that Polycarp never existed and then that Jesus never existed and now he was not the son of God.

This game yall play gets old.
 
You have to stick to the topic, you begin with that topic that Polycarp never existed and then that Jesus never existed and now he was not the son of God.

This game yall play gets old.
I am pretty sure that I never made a comment about Polycarp. That was the OP. Jesus came into play when Stringmusic brought him into the conversation.
The only game we play is a game of tag. A believer makes a claim and or statement and we reply asking for proof to back it up. Each tagging the other to explain more with examples.

In ALL of this you still have not backed up your claim. And now since you know you cannot you are trying to act like the bait and switch has occured. Jesus and his existence or not has been a part of this thread in the entire 9 pages. It is clear that you did not read what was said and by whom or else you could not question my answers and involvement in this discussion. I have maintained throughout, as Walt attests to above, that someone with the qualities of who we have come to know as Jesus likely existed. I have stated that many pages ago. What I have continued to say is that outside of the Bible he did not make an impact on the rest of the world to notice enough to record him in any major ways. YOU and others disagreed. I asked you to provide your proof and when you did I countered it with other examples that cast a suspect light on your particular examples. I hoped you had something more.
Now you seem to be upset that we have included and made points about the Divinity of Jesus and the accuracy of the miraculous deeds. Which...by the way...WAS included in the links (plural) that YOU provided!!!!
Either you believe that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore also all the other claims in the bible about him that go with it or you don't. Both go hand in hand do they not?
If you do and I think you do because you continually argue in favor of Him and his deeds then you should have ZERO problems providing evidence of what you state and claim.
I asked for evidence and you claimed there was not only evidence but OVERWHELMING evidence! And now that it is time for you to provide it you complain about having to do so.

I couldn't care less about Polycarp. There is enough information about him that satisfies my conclusion. I have discussed Jesus the entire time (when and after he was brought into the discussion by a believer)along with providing other examples within the bible that just did not happen which are to show how embellished, inaccurate and untrustworthy the bible is. You jumped in stating that there is Overwhelming evidence that backs up your claims. I am sure I did not call you out by username to join in something that you wanted no part of.
And now it seems that because you cannot refute what has been posted you want to separate Jesus the man and Jesus as told in the Bible although the people involved have already conceded that "jesus" figure already was the basis for the stories.
In your own examples that you used to prove the man called Jesus existed your examples also made a great case against that same man being anything beyond a man.
Which is it? Is Ehrman spot on or isn't he? Or is he cherry pick what you want accurate?
 
Last edited:

WaltL1

Senior Member
You have to stick to the topic, you begin with that topic that Polycarp never existed and then that Jesus never existed and now he was not the son of God.

This game yall play gets old.
Nobody is playing any games.
You can agree or disagree with our opinions/facts/thoughts but we are giving them to you straight up.
 
No it is a game. The topic is always changed, as I said above.
The topic has been the same since post #2.
If Jesus, Son of God, Miraculous events do not go hand in hand for a believer as a package deal then I would like to meet that believer.

Madman, reading the thread from the beginning and my post #175 would have cleared that up for you.
You are insisting upon things that have been addressed as if they have not.
That is a good game you have going on yourself
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
No it is a game. The topic is always changed, as I said above.
Our discussions/debate have ALWAYS been "fluid" here. In the course of discussion/ debate we have ALWAYS "bounced around" because one subject leads to another.
Yes, often we end up straying from the original post because somebody makes a comment/statement and we just go with it.
If you feel the conversation has strayed too far, a simple " Back to the original post, I want to say...." will bring it right back around.
If you are paying attention, and to be honest I don't think you really do, you will see we ALL (believers & non) make points that end up taking the conversation in a different, BUT RELATED, direction.
That's not playing games.
Here's an example -
"Playing games" has zero to do with Polycarp or Jesus or Christianity or......
So why did you bring up "playing games"????
Are YOU playing games?
Or in the course of conversation did you tell us what you thought and now we are discussing it?
 
Top