Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Stone]

Mind answering me, Stone ?

How can you call other posters mythers in a post to me, when you were so wrong about me being a myther not long ago ?

Simple: I know Tsig is.

Stone

 

[Craig B]

Again, your statement is known fiction. From the very start you had no data, no statistics, no study that showed that 99% Historians have established that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

After you have been busted you now invent another piece of fiction "A solid Majority".

You might as well retract your new invention because we all know that you just made it up.

dejudge, I think your tone really is quite remarkable. As pointed out before; this is a myther thing, as if admitting the authenticity of some of Paul's epistles, or contemplating the possibility that Jesus was a real person, is not merely total surrender to theism, but indicates a desire to burn heretics at the stake.

 

[tsig]

Simple: I know Tsig is.

Stone

Wrong, I have said several times right here in this thread that not only don't we know, we can't know whether or not Jesus existed.

How "I don't know" translates to "Jesus is a myth" is the real mystery.

There seems to be a great desire to paint anyone who questions the historicity of Jesus as a Myther then impute all sorts of beliefs to them.

Once again, the answer to the question:

Did Jesus exist in the flesh? is:

I don't know.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge, I think your tone really is quite remarkable. As pointed out before; this is a myther thing, as if admitting the authenticity of some of Paul's epistles, or contemplating the possibility that Jesus was a real person, is not merely total surrender to theism, but indicates a desire to burn heretics at the stake.

What?? It is those who claim Jesus was just a human being who must show that the Entire NT is a pack of known lies or fiction and that Christian writers of antiquity were liars, deceivers, forgers and fiction writers.

Those who claim that Jesus was a human being must reject virtually the entire NT "biography" of Jesus except perhaps parts of the baptism and parts of the crucifixion----they must reject Paul's post-resurrection Jesus.

My position is that the NT represents what was believed in antiquity by non-Jews.

My position is that the recovered and dated NT manuscripts and Codices are extremely significant documents that record the precise nature of the beliefs of the Jesus cult from the 2nd century and later.

For example, we know that Jesus of Nazareth was believed to be the Son of God from heaven from the very start and even before the birth narratives were invented and that the Jesus story was unknown until sometime in the 2nd century.

Astonishingly, amazingly, HJers must reject the stories of Jesus in the NT but will fabricate their own HJ from imagination and fiction [the baptism and crucifixion events were invented].

When an HJer claims Jesus was a Zealot or an Apocalyptic preacher we know it was made up..

It is documented and multiple attested for hundreds of years that Jesus was believed to be the only begotten Son of a God and God Creator.

Effectively---Jesus was the Logos---Not a Zealot or Apocalyptic.

 

[Belz...]

Simple: I know Tsig is.

Stone

You didn't know that I was ?

 

[Belz...]

What?? It is those who claim Jesus was just a human being who must show that the Entire NT is a pack of known lies or fiction and that Christian writers of antiquity were liars, deceivers, forgers and fiction writers.

Strange claim considering that you said that HJ people followed the bible.

 

[dejudge]

Strange claim considering that you said that HJ people followed the bible.

Please read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"?--the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

You seem to have no idea that Bart Ehrman's historical Jesus of Nazareth is straight out the Bible with some details based on his own imagination.

Bart Ehrman claims Bible John baptized his Jesus of Nazareth and that he was crucified under Pilate.

There are problems.

There is no corroborative evidence that John baptized Jesus of Nazareth in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 18

All the non-apologetic sources that mention Pilate do not record a trial when a character called Jesus of Nazareth declared he was God's Son before the Sanhedrin.

 

[Brainache]

Well, at least let us understand each other. I'm saying that the Pesher description is a generalised characterisation of the behaviour of the Romans. Now, the Judaeans first came into close contact with the Romans in consequence of Pompey's incursion, which put an end to the independent Jewish Kingdom. At this point the sectarian apocalypticists start writing about the Romans. They are not writing day to day notices of Pompey's (or Vespasian's) military operations. They are describing the Romans in a general sense.

ETA: I don't think the Apocalypticists really kicked off until after Herod died. At least that's what Josephus said:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance...

but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty;...

They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains;

... the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction...

So, I'm not sure they were overly concerned with Pompey. They had bigger fish to fry.

I disagree with your understanding of what a "Pesher" actually was:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q266-273_CD_damascus-document.html

Originally Posted by G.A. Rodley
"The documents called 4QpPsa (4Q171) and 1QpHab are examples of a genre of which a number of instances were found in the caves. Each is a pesher (plural, pesharim), that is, a commentary on a book of the Old Testament, claiming that its wording predicts events in the life of the Teacher and his opponents. Significantly, only one copy of each pesher was found in the caves, whereas multiple copies of other documents were found. The pesharim are an ephemeral genre of literature, referring to events in the author's own immediate circumstances, with the claim that they fulfilled prophecies. Once events changed, and the prophecies were seen to fit subsequent events better, the earlier document would be regarded as invalid. This would mean that no copies were made, each of the pesharim being an original...

More than that will probably have to wait. It's late again, I'll reply to whatever in the morning.

Cheers.

I didn't say what it was. I said it contained a description of the behaviour of the Romans towards the "nations" and "peoples" of the "earth".

And I'm agreeing with the bloke on the website where he says that these "Pesharim" were about contemporary events. So if the scroll was deposited in 70 CE the Pesher is more likely to be describing the events leading up to the revolt against Rome, than something that happened 110 years prior.

Read what was going on there at the time. They had plenty of contemporary stuff to write about, no need to drag up folk tales of what happened a hundred years ago...

That Pesher isn't only about the Romans:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

...[Interpreted, this concerns] those who were unfaithful together with the Liar, in that they [did] not [listen to the word received by] the teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God. And it concerns the unfaithful of the New [Covenant] in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God [and have profaned] his holy name. And likewise,

this saying is to be interpreted [as concerning those who] will be unfaithful at the end of days. They, the men of violence and the breakers of the Covenant, will not believe when they hear all that [is to happen to] the final generation from the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of his servants the prophets, through whom
he foretold all that would happen to his people and [his land].

End of days. WOOOOOOO spooky!

 

[Belz...]

You seem to have no idea that Bart Ehrman's historical Jesus of Nazareth is straight out the Bible with some details based on his own imagination.

You seem to be under some impression that I care at all about this Ehrman. You are mistaken. This isn't what we are talking about, but rather the posters in this thread.

But you know this already. So far you've done little but insult other posters.

 

[Brainache]

What?? It is those who claim Jesus was just a human being who must show that the Entire NT is a pack of known lies or fiction and that Christian writers of antiquity were liars, deceivers, forgers and fiction writers.

Those who claim that Jesus was a human being must reject virtually the entire NT "biography" of Jesus except perhaps parts of the baptism and parts of the crucifixion----they must reject Paul's post-resurrection Jesus.

My position is that the NT represents what was believed in antiquity by non-Jews.

My position is that the recovered and dated NT manuscripts and Codices are extremely significant documents that record the precise nature of the beliefs of the Jesus cult from the 2nd century and later.

For example, we know that Jesus of Nazareth was believed to be the Son of God from heaven from the very start and even before the birth narratives were invented and that the Jesus story was unknown until sometime in the 2nd century.

Astonishingly, amazingly, HJers must reject the stories of Jesus in the NT but will fabricate their own HJ from imagination and fiction [the baptism and crucifixion events were invented].

When an HJer claims Jesus was a Zealot or an Apocalyptic preacher we know it was made up..

It is documented and multiple attested for hundreds of years that Jesus was believed to be the only begotten Son of a God and God Creator.

Effectively---Jesus was the Logos---Not a Zealot or Apocalyptic.

Please read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"?--the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

You seem to have no idea that Bart Ehrman's historical Jesus of Nazareth is straight out the Bible with some details based on his own imagination.

Bart Ehrman claims Bible John baptized his Jesus of Nazareth and that he was crucified under Pilate.

There are problems.

There is no corroborative evidence that John baptized Jesus of Nazareth in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 18

All the non-apologetic sources that mention Pilate do not record a trial when a character called Jesus of Nazareth declared he was God's Son before the Sanhedrin.

You haven't convinced anyone. You have provided no expert support for your opinion. You are alone on this point. You haven't listened to anything anyone has said on this subject. Your arguments are childish and ignorant. You insult everyone, including those who might be sympathetic to your position. And your mother wore army boots.

I'm wondering why you bother.

Why is this so important to you?

ETA: I don't think the Apocalypticists really kicked off until after Herod died. At least that's what Josephus said:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html


So, I'm not sure they were overly concerned with Pompey. They had bigger fish to fry.
...

That Pesher isn't only about the Romans:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html


End of days. WOOOOOOO spooky!

I don't know about anyone else, but this DSS stuff makes me think: "Bolt the doors and windows, keep the children safe and hold on to your hats, because the Dominant Paradigm is being subverted!"

Stay tuned for more excitement...

 

[dejudge]

You haven't convinced anyone. You have provided no expert support for your opinion. You are alone on this point. You haven't listened to anything anyone has said on this subject.

I am merely exposing your fallacies.

You have confirmed that you have no idea how the past is reconstructed. You have No idea what is needed to re-assemble history.

It is NOT expert opinion without evidence that determines what happened in the past. Never was and never will be.

History is reconstructed by EVIDENCE, DATA, Credible Sources, and ARTIFACTS.

You have NO DATA, NO EVIDENCE, NO ARTIFACTS and no Credible Sources for Jesus the Zealot.

You have FLAWED expert opinion--a dime a dozen. You do not know the difference between evidence and expert opinion without evidence.

If you did you would not have supported Robert Eiseman's Jesus the Zealot.

You have no DATA for your fallacies that the Majority of Historians have established that Jesus was a figure of history. You will never ever present a source for your fallacies.

Now, the evidence for Myth Jesus is secure and cannot be changed. It is "cast in stone".

Many NT manuscripts and Codices have been found and dated from the 2nd century and later.

They declare that Jesus of Nazareth was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Logos, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah, resurrected on the third day and ascended to heaven.

The claim that Jesus was indeed born of a Ghost and God Creator in the recovered NT manuscripts and Codices have corroborated the same teachings in writings attributed to Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Aristides, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Optatus, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine and others.

Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology like Perseus and Romulus and 'one like the Son of man' in the book of Daniel.

Jesus of Nazareth was EXCLUDED from the genealogies of JEWS in the Gospels.

Jesus of Nazareth was God from the beginning.

Jesus of Nazareth was MYTH from the start.

Maybe you know the names of a BILLION experts but they don't have any evidence for HJ of Nazareth except "the Shroud of Turin" and the forgeries in Josephus' Antiquities of Jews.

 

[Brainache]

I am merely exposing your fallacies.

...

Read this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/

...besides considerations of how atheists should be properly cautious, disciplined, patient, and deferent to scholarship before committing strongly to beliefs one way or the other about the historical Jesus, there are overwhelmingly clear strategic reasons not to get into fights about the issue with Christians. Quite simply, there are so many easier and clearer cut ways to debunk Christianity’s claims to truth that it is a terrible idea to get distracted trying to make a case that is at best just probable that Jesus didn’t exist. Even if you could convince a Christian that he likely didn’t exist, I can’t imagine very many Christians at all who would take that as a good reason not to believe in him. Christians will routinely seize on minuscule probabilities to believe even wilder propositions if it suits their faith. If there’s even a 20% chance there was a historical Jesus, if we have even Richard Carrier being careful to point out that he just thinks there was no Jesus but he can’t really know for sure, then to people already desperate to believe in Jesus that is tantamount to total vindication that Jesus is real. It’s just not the kind of thing I see as persuading them into disbelief. At all...

Then read this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Philosopher (and FtB alum) Dan Fincke has written a good, concise piece on why atheists need to don a little more sense and humility when claiming Jesus didn’t exist. In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith...

I've posted these before, I'm not sure how you missed them.

 

[dejudge]

Read this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/


Then read this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733


I've posted these before, I'm not sure how you missed them.

If you had a clue about the re-construction of the past you would not even attempt to give me propaganda as advice. I do not need your propaganda based advice.

Your propaganda based advice is applicable to you. You are the one who support the modern myth that Jesus was a Zealot without a shred of evidence except for the Shroud of Turin and forgeries in Josephus.


You need advice because you are the one claiming the majority of historians have established there was an historical Jesus when perhaps less than 1% of historians worldwide have an opinion on the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus.

My position is extremely solid and well supported by thousands of NT manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century and later.

In all the genealogies of Jewish people in the Gospels Jesus of Nazareth is EXCLUDED.

Examine gMatthew 1and gLuke 1. Jesus of Nazareth is missing from Jewish genealogies. Jesus is the son of the Ghost.

Now, examine gJohn 1---we know why Jesus is missing from Jewish genealogies.

Jesus was the Logos God Creator.

Jesus of Nazareth is pure unadulterated mythology--Spirit of Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

I do not need flawed opinion, I do not need Eiseman, because there are thousands of NT manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century and later.

The evidence have been found and dated --in antiquity Jesus was God Creator born of a Ghost--a Life Giving Spirit.

 

[Brainache]

If you had a clue about the re-construction of the past you would not even attempt to give me propaganda as advice. I do not need your propaganda based advice.

Your propaganda based advice is applicable to you. You are the one who support the modern myth that Jesus was a Zealot without a shred of evidence except for the Shroud of Turin and forgeries in Josephus.


You need advice because you are the one claiming the majority of historians have established there was an historical Jesus when perhaps less than 1% of historians worldwide have an opinion on the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus.

My position is extremely solid and well supported by thousands of NT manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century and later.

In all the genealogies of Jewish people in the Gospels Jesus of Nazareth is EXCLUDED.

Examine gMatthew 1and gLuke 1. Jesus of Nazareth is missing from Jewish genealogies. Jesus is the son of the Ghost.

Now, examine gJohn 1---we know why Jesus is missing from Jewish genealogies.

Jesus was the Logos God Creator.

Jesus of Nazareth is pure unadulterated mythology--Spirit of Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV

I do not need flawed opinion, I do not need Eiseman, because there are thousands of NT manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century and later.

The evidence have been found and dated --in antiquity Jesus was God Creator born of a Ghost--a Life Giving Spirit.

OK.

Thanks.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (megasnip) . . . Many NT manuscripts and Codices have been found and dated from the 2nd century and later.

They declare that Jesus of Nazareth was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Logos, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah, resurrected on the third day and ascended to heaven.

Concerning the area I've hilited, the Gospel of Mark, in fact, make's no such claim. Ultimately, the miracles of the gospels have little bearing on the historicity of Jesus. Any historical Jesus would have served as a mere kernel, like the irritant the oyster coats with layers of nacre to create a pearl. The gospels are demonstrably fictional, just as are the stoires of King Arthur. Gildas refers to a Romanized Briton, Ambrosius Aurelianus, as leading the Briton resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. He's probably the historical basis for Arthur, and the Arthur of Mallory's Morte d'Arthur bears the same resemblance to him as the gospels do to any historical Jesus.

. . . (snip) . . . Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology like Perseus and Romulus and 'one like the Son of man' in the book of Daniel.

Jesus of Nazareth was EXCLUDED from the genealogies of JEWS in the Gospels.

Jesus of Nazareth was God from the beginning.

Jesus of Nazareth was MYTH from the start.

Maybe you know the names of a BILLION experts but they don't have any evidence for HJ of Nazareth except "the Shroud of Turin" and the forgeries in Josephus' Antiquities of Jews.

I can't agree with your assertion that Jesus was a god from the beginning. The Jesus of Mark is very much a mortal upon whom the spirit of God descends. His epiphany at his baptism is very subjective (Mk. 1:10, 11, bolding added):

And straightaway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, "Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased."

Both Matthew and Luke changed the baptism scene to make Jesus more of a God and less of a man. Matthew has voice from heaven say (Mt. 3:17) "This is my beloved son . . ." as though it were speaking to the people about Jesus, rather than addressing Jesus. According to Luke (Lk. 3:21), " . . . the heaven was opened." making this an objective fact, rather than what Jesus subjectively saw. John, having made Jesus into the divine Logos at the opening of his gospel, dispenses with the baptism altogether.

The evolution of the baptism from Mark - a mortal's subjective epiphany - through more objective epiphanies of the God-man of Matthew and Luke, to the fully divine Logos of John, indicates that Jesus was, in fact, not a god from the beginning. Of course, by the time the Gospel of John was written, by the most conservative dating, ca. CE 90, Jesus had indeed become a god.

Another indication of the increasing divinity of Jesus can be seen in the embarrassing contortions and rationalizations Matthew and Luke have to go through in their nativity stories to make Jesus part of the Davidic line and born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophesy in Micah 5:2, yet still have him come from Nazareth in Galilee. It would seem, were Jesus wholly mythical, as opposed to about 90+% mythical, that they would have simply had Jesus come from Bethlehem and dispensed with having him come from Galilee. It would appear they were stuck with a real guy who came from Galilee and had to work around that inconvenient fact to make him fit messianic prophecies

Ultimately, I find the argument as to whether Jesus was or was not historical to be moot. By the time Paul had largely dispensed with any historical Jesus in favor of his hallucinogenic revelations and by the time the wildly syncretistic Christian church had incorporated imagery from the cult of Isis, among other pagan material, any historic Jesus had been buried in layer after layer of myth - just as the irritant kernel is buried in layer after layer of nacre to make a pearl.

 

[jobberone]

We have been over that point countless times - the plain fact is, there is no evidence of a real living Jesus in any of that bible writing, neither the letters of Paul or the canonical gospels.

What's written in those gospels and Paul's letters is, as you very well know by now, only evidence of peoples religious beliefs. There is no evidence there of Jesus.

If you arrive at your 6:40 probability on the basis of what's written in the bible, as indeed you just implied that you do, and as indeed is inevitable because the bible is the sole entire source of all belief in Jesus, then your 60:40 belief is actually based upon religious faith!

That’s not to say you are a Christian theist. What it means is you are placing your faith in the religious faith of Paul and the gospel writers. And their faith was overwhelmingly a belief in the supernatural.

Paul in his first letter to Corinth says that Peter and the brothers of Jesus travel with their 'adelphen gunaika' or sister-wives/believing wives and perhaps actual wives. This is not an outright religious statement and it is in the Bible.

 

[IanS]

Paul in his first letter to Corinth says that Peter and the brothers of Jesus travel with their 'adelphen gunaika' or sister-wives/believing wives and perhaps actual wives. This is not an outright religious statement and it is in the Bible.

That's not evidence of Jesus as a living person though is it?

We are talking about what Paul says about knowing Jesus, and whether what he says is his religious belief, or whether it's actually evidence that Jesus was a living human person.

 

[Brainache]

That's not evidence of Jesus as a living person though is it?

We are talking about what Paul says about knowing Jesus, and whether what he says is his religious belief, or whether it's actually evidence that Jesus was a living human person.

It was a religious belief that Jesus had brothers whom Paul had met?

 

[jobberone]

That's not evidence of Jesus as a living person though is it?

We are talking about what Paul says about knowing Jesus, and whether what he says is his religious belief, or whether it's actually evidence that Jesus was a living human person.

Here is what you said:

"We have been over that point countless times - the plain fact is, there is no evidence of a real living Jesus in any of that bible writing, neither the letters of Paul or the canonical gospels.

What's written in those gospels and Paul's letters is, as you very well know by now, only evidence of peoples religious beliefs. There is no evidence there of Jesus."

It is highly likely you are in error in assuming that the Pauline material and the Gospels are devoid of fact. I find nothing directly religious of Paul in saying Peter et al travel with their wives.

This is first hand testimony which a reasonable amount of the NT is. You can discard it as non-factual. I point this out because I think it is important to not entirely dismiss the Bible because there are some pretty wild claims in it or you disagree with the religious content.

 

[IanS]

Here is what you said:

"We have been over that point countless times - the plain fact is, there is no evidence of a real living Jesus in any of that bible writing, neither the letters of Paul or the canonical gospels.

What's written in those gospels and Paul's letters is, as you very well know by now, only evidence of peoples religious beliefs. There is no evidence there of Jesus."

It is highly likely you are in error in assuming that the Pauline material and the Gospels are devoid of fact. I find nothing directly religious of Paul in saying Peter et al travel with their wives.

This is first hand testimony which a reasonable amount of the NT is. You can discard it as non-factual. I point this out because I think it is important to not entirely dismiss the Bible because there are some pretty wild claims in it or you disagree with the religious content.

No. In your highlight you left out the rest of the sentence which I have just highlighted in RED for you. As you very well know, we are talking about Paul’s belief in Jesus - that sentence, like everything in this discussion, is very clearly referring specifically to what Paul and the gospels say about Jesus and whether or not that is just evidence of their religious belief in Jesus or whether any of it is evidence of Jesus as a real person ... that's why the red part of that sentence, which you so "helpfully" chose to omit from your highlight, specifically does say that it's referring to evidence of Jesus.

Try not to deliberately mislead people by pretending you did not know that the discussion here is about biblical beliefs in Jesus (it's not about whether the bible names real places such as Jerusalem or whether Paul says he visited Cephas ... nobody here is arguing that Jerusalem was only a biblical religious belief - we know Jerusalem is a real place and not merely a figment of Pauls/Gospel religious belief).