There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Windwalker]

Nonsense.

To you it is. Not to those who understand what I am talking about, however.

 

[TLK Valentine]

People believe in them. We have stories about them. People have mystical experiences where they are part of them. There's lots of fact about gods. Here's a wiki article that talks about them. There's lots of information about them. Deity - Wikipedia

Perhaps you mean to ask do we have confirmable scientific proofs about gods being literally what the stories about them say are true? That's a entirely different question, and a rather silly one at that.

Extremely silly -- but it hasn't stopped people from claiming to have answers to those questions for centuries...

 

[Thrillobyte]

Not sure whether you missed my question or whether you ignored it, but I'll run it by you just on the chance you missed it:

Does Ehrman acknowledge the existence of the miracle-working Jesus, son of God born of a virgin who caused a great darkness to ascend on the earth for 3 hours at his death and rose from the dead 3 days later?

Windwalker doesn't want to answer the question obviously because it hurts his position so I'll answer it for him:

Contrary to what Windwalker tries to hint at, Bart Ehrman doesn't believe in the son of God Jesus who rose from the dead. He's an acknowledged agnostic but most believe closeted atheist. When Ehrman says there was a "historic" Jesus he's referring to an ordinary man who might have been a rabbi who was baptized and crucified and that was the end of him. Ehrman acknowledges there's absolutely nothing in the historic record for either an ordinary man, Jesus or a divine Jesus. That's Ehrman's position.

Ehrman:
“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!”

 

[lukethethird]

Windwalker doesn't want to answer the question obviously because it hurts his position so I'll answer it for him:

Contrary to what Windwalker tries to hint at, Bart Ehrman doesn't believe in the son of God Jesus who rose from the dead. He's an acknowledged agnostic but most believe closeted atheist. When Ehrman says there was a "historic" Jesus he's referring to an ordinary man who might have been a rabbi who was baptized and crucified and that was the end of him. Ehrman acknowledges there's absolutely nothing in the historic record for either an ordinary man, Jesus or a divine Jesus. That's Ehrman's position.

Ehrman:
“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!”

Ehrman is certainly not agnostic regarding the question of Jesus's existence, he thoroughly believes that Jesus was historical, in fact he claims never to have considered otherwise, he's a true believer.

 

[lukethethird]

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus​

Of course there isn't, and it should come as no surprise.

 

[dybmh]

This isn't new or unique to this forum.

OK, so what.

Well, there's no accusation against anyone. The issue is one claim versus another claim. The claim that the Gosvels are true at face value falls flat on a number of issues, but the big one is the supernatural elements. There's no known suvernatural phenomenon known to exist, so anyone making a suvernatural claim will have to demonstrate that it exists. At the very least they need to show SOME supernaturalism happens, or there are effects in nature that are better explained by supernatural causes. These are attempted, but fail. Theists have the bad habit of assuming religious texts are divine, and that's an assumption rejected in critical thought.

OK, so what. I have repeatedly said it's not my claim.

I don't see critical thinkers calling it a lie. The lie would be any believer who aserts the Jesus myth is true at face value, and they can't prove it. So this is a strawman.

Well, that's what I see, and I'm not sure youre following the thread very closely. So, your judgement on what is being claimed isn't useful.

Well you aren't arguing against critical thinkers, you are arguing against the rules of logic. In logic any claim is by default untrue UNTIL evidence is offered that demonstrated the claim is true, or at least likely true.

No I'm not arguing against logic. You're claiming there's no such thing as "I don't know" as a valid answer. That's not critical thinking, that s extreme pessimism and arrogance. It assumes that the so-called critical thinker has 100% of the data, and has ruled out all other explanations. "I dont know" is a valid conclusion under the circumstances. "Unlikely" is a valid concusion in this case. There is evidence of Jesus existing. There's a huge movement that sprouted up. That's evidence of something. What that something is, is the debate. "It's false" doesn't work because there is evidence, just not strong evidence.

Critical thinkers are just following the rules of logic and debate, and the reason is because this offers a reliable path to truth. So critical thinkers aren't concluding that the Jesus myth is untrue, it's the logical starting point. And how is this an over-reaction? You don't explain your judgment there. What better approach do you suggest?

First, applying the criticism to their own conclusions. Second, being skeptical that they have all the data, or that having data at all is unlikely. Third, asking if the test applied to determine "It's false" is a valid test.

Whether minor or major it hurts the already fantastic claims. Occam's Razor says the story about Jesus is likely embellished, and there needs to be a massive amount of evidence to support it. There simply isn't any. Then on top of that there are older stories that look similar to the Jesus myth,

Not really similar, only similar if a person ignores ALL the differences.

which suggests copying.

Nope, common misconception. Cast a net wide enough, and there is going to be a few common elements. That does not suggest copying.

In fact, it's easy to disprove copying by looking for those same common elements in geographically distant myths.

This isn't new or unique in the Bible, as the Noah flood myth is likely a copy of Gilgamesh.

Nope, again, you don't know the details. There are 2 version of the Epic. The old version, the original version doesn't have any flood at all. Then, magically during the Iron age collapse, or shortly after, when cultural groups were scattered, suddenly, magically, the flood story was added to the Epic. I think it was around 1100BCE.

But, ya know, those details don't matter to the so-called critical thinker. They don't critically think about that stuff, ya know.. facts. When the Epic was actually written. They probably never read the epic, or know anything about it.

Unless there is some sort of explanation that Egyptian and pagan lore could not influence the Jesus myth (which there isn't since the two cultures were known to exist in the Middle East in that era) we have to consider this is the basis for the Jesus myth.

Well, since you haven't actually brought any of these supposed similarities, no actual evidence, I am CRITICAL of your claim. And per your metric I assume it's false without evidence. I will accept actual Egyptian and Pagan texts, in the original language, from a repuable non-biased translator.

That means scholars who were originally Christian and have left their faith are rejected, because they have an obvious incentive and motivation to justify their departure from their religion.

So, do you *actually* have any evidence from these Egyptian and pagan myths? And have you looked for other myths from geogrpahically distant cultures that share those same similarities? Did you attempt to falsify this claim, at all?

Critical thinkers understand we can't ignore evidence.

That's a romantic ideal that is rarely seen. The so-called critical thinker is just as biased and ignorant as anyone else.

Theists are notorious for ignoring counter evidence to their beliefs, and this is a huge error.

Hypocrisy OVERLOAD!

This is a weak point. If your name is Jesse James we aren't going to confuse you with the outlaw. The outlaw actually existed, and you actually exist, same names, no confusion, so dispute whether the original Jesse James did miracles and came back to life after being killed. And you wouldn't fear getting arrested for bank robberies because the police follow evidence, and the evidence is adequate that makes it impossible for you to be the same Jesse James as the criminal. See the advantage of following facts?

Contextual mismatch. Again, try to stay on topic. Pay attention. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MIRACLES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MYTHICAL SIMILARITIES.

Many ancient religions and lore had immortal gods, and elelments common with other gods. We have to consider each myth for what it is and how it affected other versions.

Ummmm, but if it's so common then copying is not suggested by those similarities.

It could be coincidence that Egyptians and pagans had similar beliefs to the eventual Jesus myth. When we examine all of these none are any more credible or likely true since the evidence just isn't sufficient.

Correct! And since I never claimed they were?

And I don't even know if the beliefs were similar in a substantive way. There has been no evidence brought.

Yeah, if you claimed to eat a ham sandwich for lunch I will take your word for it. If you claim to be God, well, that I will need evidence for. Can you see the difference in these two claims? The more fantastic a claim the more evidence needed.

Since my argument is that the actual evens were not as fantastic as they were written, this is irrelevant.

And you have to start without assuming your conclusion is true.

Likewise.

False, I defer to Occam's Razor since religious claims both lack plausibility, and lack evidence. What do you expect us to do?

And the simplest answer is "I don't know. I wasn't there. And it was 1000s of years ago."

Arguably the Jesus of the myth is in the same fictional category as any Greek hero you care to name, or Santa, or Hobbits. There's nothing offensive about this.

Offensive? No. Stupid? Yes. I mean, I'm exactly like Kareem Abdul Jabar if you ignore everything about me that's different.

This sounds like sour grapes. Many theists are upset that critical thinkers are critical thinkers. It's like being upset that a dog doesn't act like a cat.

No.... It's pointing out that bible-critics are not actually critical thinkers. They are basically preaching an exaggerated religion. And they usually came from a preachy exaggerated religion. So it makes sense that the backlash would be equal and opposite. I'm simply pointing that out hoping that it will sink in a little helping those who left their faith recover and approach a moderate conclusion.

Should my observations and thinking be based on someone elses experience? Do your values and beliefs get guided by other people, or your perspective? Your comment here sounds like more your greivance than a fault of mine.

No.... you should be aware that your experiences are not representative of all Christians, all Abrahamic religions, or all religions other than your own.

It is a HUGE fault to do so. And an even HUGER fault to be unable to see it while criticising others.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Ehrman is certainly not agnostic regarding the question of Jesus's existence, he thoroughly believes that Jesus was historical, in fact he claims never to have considered otherwise, he's a true believer.

You have got to be kidding us, bro. Ehrman lost his faith decades ago. If he's a true believer, it's belief that Jesus never existed.

 

[lukethethird]

You have got to be kidding us, bro. Ehrman lost his faith decades ago. If he's a true believer, it's belief that Jesus never existed.

I have read Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?, and his answer is an emphatic yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have read Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?, and his answer is an emphatic yes.

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In this book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[1][2]

Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.[1]

Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lukethethird]

Unfortunately Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist? was a complete disaster. The critics had a field day with it, Ehrman offered nothing but hypothetical texts for his sources, hypothetical because the texts he referred to are not known to have ever existed. He offered his historical Jesus fan club nothing. He probably can be blamed for putting an end to the third quest for an historical Jesus.

Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Thrillobyte]

I have read Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?, and his answer is an emphatic yes.

(sigh)

"When Bart Ehrman was a young Evangelical Christian, he wanted to know how God became a man, but now, as an agnostic atheist and historian of early Christianity, he wants to know how a man became God."

What does Bart D Ehrman believe?

"He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering."

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is an interesting story about Ehrman's position at NCU at Chapel Hill: he's an admitted non-believer in Jesus Christ's divinity and wrote many books questioning everything about Jesus including "Forged" and "Misquoting Jesus". Despite his popularity with students at NCU his militant stand against Jesus and God rankled the trustees so they offered him an ultimatum to keep his job: write a book acknowledging his belief Jesus was a real person if not divine or lose his position. Ehrman liked his position so he compromised with his conscience and wrote
"Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" The reviews demonstrate how poorly the book was received. To wit:

"Unfortunately what Ehrman has done here is to pander to the christian audience who are looking for scholarship to back up their fixed beliefs."

Read the reviews.

 

[Windwalker]

Something interesting happened to me some years ago.

I had been a lifelong atheist, and quite content with it. Then I conducted an experiment where I prayed, kind of into nowhere, and asked "god" if it existed and wanted to, to respond to me. I phrased it a respectfully and put no limits on what the response should be, or how quickly it should appear. To my great surprise, I received a "sign" that was totally convincing to me.

That started me on a "conversation" with whatever it was I had contacted. I realized that I had no reason to think it was any of the accepted "god forms" from any of the established religions. I joined a Christian church, on its urging, and continued my studies there. I found that none of the supernatural beliefs of the church (the Trinity, resurrection and so on) made any sense to me. I did arrive at a picture of something similar to what I think you are describing, a formless "something" that existed under and within everything.

Some time later, the whole thing faded away, and I lost interest in it. I concluded that the ability of the human mind to fool itself is close to limitless. It seems I had something missing from my life and wanted it badly enough to create remarkable illusion.

Our experiences are considerably different. I was not looking for signs, testing the waters of a possible supernatural god or such by experimental prayers as tests, nor heard voices urging me into this or that option as a path to take in life. I do understand what that can look like, wanting to see something and letting ourselves manufacture it for ourselves. And in a lot of ways this is how they approach faith, which is in a way of seeing the Divine as a form of magic.

My experience was a spontaneous event that is commonly referred to as a Satori. It was nothing I was seeking, nor was based upon ideas or beliefs: Satori - Wikipedia

Satori means the experience of awakening ("enlightenment") or apprehension of the true nature of reality.[3][6] It is often considered an experience which cannot be expressed in words​

....​

​

Satori is often used interchangeably with kenshō.[4] Kenshō refers to the perception of the Buddha-nature or emptiness. While the terms have the same meaning, customarily satori is used to refer to full, deep experience of enlightenment (such as of the Buddha), while kenshō is used to refer to a first experience of enlightenment that can still be expanded.​

​

That was however a temporary experience, which forever changed my life. The rest is the pursuit both returning to that and integrating it as a permanent condition.

Now, I have returned to my atheism, but with a sense of peace having replaced whatever it was that drove me to conducting the experiment in the first place. I no longer seem to need to understand everything, and will drift gently to the end of my life, not far off now, with the satisfaction of knowing that I looked into a mysterious place and found it empty.

Coming to a place of letting go of trying to find answers, through magic or even through trying to rationally understand things is a good thing. It sounds to me like you gave magical thinking a whirl, and found it wasn't a good fit for you. I can relate to that myself, having tried to make the theological God of fundamentalist Christianity work for me.

 

[Windwalker]

Windwalker doesn't want to answer the question obviously because it hurts his position so I'll answer it for him:

Don't be a jerk. I did answer the question. You just didn't read it: Post 612: There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

Contrary to what Windwalker tries to hint at, Bart Ehrman doesn't believe in the son of God Jesus who rose from the dead. He's an acknowledged agnostic but most believe closeted atheist.

Yeah, go back and read my post you missed. I do not believe Ehrman believes that. I said clearly he doesn't believe the miracles and stuff are literal history. But my point which you seem to glazing over is this: While Ehrman recognizes there are no contemporaries who speak of Jesus, and while he does not believe the stories are literally history, he does however believe there was a real, historical person who lived that the stories are based upon!

That blows your argument out of the water, that since there were no contemporaries who mentioned Jesus, that means Jesus never existed! Ehrman rejects that idea. Got it?

When Ehrman says there was a "historic" Jesus he's referring to an ordinary man who might have been a rabbi who was baptized and crucified and that was the end of him.

Sure. And this proves my point that your argument that because no one mentioned him that means he didn't exist, is a bogus argument. That doesn't prove anything at all.

Ehrman acknowledges there's absolutely nothing in the historic record for either an ordinary man, Jesus or a divine Jesus. That's Ehrman's position.

Ehrman:
“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!”

Correct. Now, next time try to read my posts, especially when I quoted you in it. You should have gotten a notification of my response.

 

[Windwalker]

Ehrman is certainly not agnostic regarding the question of Jesus's existence, he thoroughly believes that Jesus was historical, in fact he claims never to have considered otherwise, he's a true believer.

No, he is not a believer. But is is a qualified scholar. That is why he rejects mythicists. For scholarly reasons.

 

[Windwalker]

You have got to be kidding us, bro. Ehrman lost his faith decades ago. If he's a true believer, it's belief that Jesus never existed.

False. Ehrman believes that Jesus existed. He wrote an entire book saying so! Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia.

"Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In this book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[1][2]​

​

...​

​

"He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.[1]​

​

You need to double check these things before stating what is obviously false.

You've lost this debate already, or at the least you can't cite Ehrman as supporting your view Jesus never existed. He flatly rejects that idea.

 

[F1fan]

Well, that's what I see, and I'm not sure youre following the thread very closely. So, your judgement on what is being claimed isn't useful.

You have a lot of religious ideas that you seem to want to be true, but critical thinkers aren't helping you out. That's the nature of open forums.

No I'm not arguing against logic. You're claiming there's no such thing as "I don't know" as a valid answer.

I never said any such thing. You seem to be putting words in many peoples' mouths, perhaps over-interpreting instead of asking for clarification.

There is evidence of Jesus existing. There's a huge movement that sprouted up. That's evidence of something. What that something is, is the debate. "It's false" doesn't work because there is evidence, just not strong evidence.

The evidence that is available is not terribly good, lots of hearsay. I accept that many Jesus-like teachers existed and there wa slikely one who was quite popular. That doesn't help believe the myth.

First, applying the criticism to their own conclusions. Second, being skeptical that they have all the data, or that having data at all is unlikely. Third, asking if the test applied to determine "It's false" is a valid test.

Critical thinkers will revisit old conclusions if new evidence becomes available, much like science and the courts. And as I have noted critical thinkers are more likely to look at all the evidence more than a theist who has a motive to form biased thinking and biased conclusions.

Nope, again, you don't know the details. There are 2 version of the Epic. The old version, the original version doesn't have any flood at all. Then, magically during the Iron age collapse, or shortly after, when cultural groups were scattered, suddenly, magically, the flood story was added to the Epic. I think it was around 1100BCE.

But, ya know, those details don't matter to the so-called critical thinker. They don't critically think about that stuff, ya know.. facts. When the Epic was actually written. They probably never read the epic, or know anything about it.

I said the Bible story was most likely a copy of Gilgamesh, and you are overblowing a response here, and adding a little insult to boot. Neither story is true at face value.

Well, since you haven't actually brought any of these supposed similarities, no actual evidence, I am CRITICAL of your claim. And per your metric I assume it's false without evidence. I will accept actual Egyptian and Pagan texts, in the original language, from a repuable non-biased translator.

The similarities are fairly well known. I exvect you to be aware of them.

No.... It's pointing out that bible-critics are not actually critical thinkers. They are basically preaching an exaggerated religion. And they usually came from a preachy exaggerated religion. So it makes sense that the backlash would be equal and opposite. I'm simply pointing that out hoping that it will sink in a little helping those who left their faith recover and approach a moderate conclusion.

So you are working to bring people back to religious belief? And what is a "moderate conclusion"? Is it a compromised conclusion?

No.... you should be aware that your experiences are not representative of all Christians, all Abrahamic religions, or all religions other than your own.

Good thing i didn't say they were.

 

[F1fan]

I thought my following sentences in that post would make clear the context I was speaking of. Typically when someone calls down science as the final arbiter of truth, they are speaking of nature as the physical material world.

Who speicially is claiming this? All we can say about science that it is the only reliable method we have to understand what is true about the universe. It follows facts. There is observed hostility by some theists against science, and this tends to be because results contradict some of their religious beliefs. these religious beliefs are not fact-based, namely creationism and intelligent design.

That said, what evidence is there that there is anything else beyond the material universe? If there is any evidence, science is going to be what explains it.

My point was to show that science hardly is able to speak to domains beyond that.

Then you admit these domains don't exist, because science deals with what exists. These domains are what? And as you answer how can you explain anything without evidence?

We use other means to penetrate our understanding of non-physical reality all the time.

What is "Non-physical reality" exactly. If it is non-physical how can it be real?

So can we understand the nature of the Transcendent, or God without science? The answer is a definitely yes!

So you are referring to the imaginary?

Of course, I see all it both what we call 'nature' and the 'supernatural' as ultimately the same thing.

Why mix the real with the imagined? Could this be a way to blur reality, and help the self better justify belief in implausible religious concepts?

We just use those conventions to speak of what seems commonplace to us as "nature" and what seems extraordinary as "supernatural".

The real versus imaginary is important for those who seek truth. True versus untrue is also important. We are capable of having a good understanding of these separate categories.

I personally don't care for those terms. It's both natural and supernatural, and neither. The entire ball of wax is Divine, or Reality with a capital R, both the sacred and the mundane, both the religious and the scientific.

It's only a problem for believers.

I am saying that we can determine things to be true that science cannot penetrate with its limited perceptions and toolsets. Yes.

How? Notice you leave out these crucial explanations.

Yes, we can determine that certain things are objectively and practically real and true using other means than the empiric sciences. Certainly.

Sure, we can see others cars on the road as we drive. We don;t need a science test to verify our observations of real objects and phenomenon. We don't see gods, or angels, or experience miracles in a way that is definitive. Of course I have been hit four times by cars in the last decade while on the bike training for racing, once a head on collision. I was back on the bike the next day all four times. I joke that God intervenes on behalf of this atheist.

Again, if by "nature' you mean a physicalist materialist only reality, then the answer becomes easy. For understand things like Shakespeare or human relationships, we use the eye of the mind, or hermeneutics. For spiritual concerns, we use the eye of spirit, or the contemplative, mediative introspective eye. We know our Self, through a direct firsthand apprehension, much the way we look at the moons of jupiter using the eye of a telescope.

You use uncommon terms here without definition, and suggest that this "spiritual" eye can see actual things. But you are vague about the actual things, and even use an analogy of seeing Jupiter instead of explaining what your spirtual method actually acheives. How could science examine the spiritual when you avoid describing it? How is it real when you can't talk about it?

No, there are tools indeed. It's just that the tools of the empiric sciences are not the definitive, end all be all tools of human knowledge of what is the true, the good, and the beautiful.

Well tell us more about the tools that detect non-physical reality.

So the basic tools for understanding truth and reality, are the eye of the flesh, or the eye of the mind, or the eye of the spirit. All three interact and interpenetrate.

This is vague. "Eye of the flesh" is awkward, don't you mean the eyes? If not, explain. And explain the other eyes, and what they do. You have a bad habit of dropping in uncommon words and phrases without explaining them. To my skeptism it suggests you are trying to hide something. If all this is real and true just come out an explain it.

It is perfectly valid. You just didn't understand the context in which I was trying to speak.

I don't understand what you think is true because you are being vague, and offer no evidence. I remain unconvinced as a result.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know what the participants were told, and no one can really know what was in their hearts, except for God of course. But, it was the researchers will which would have been done if there was any conclusive evidence.

Sadly, if the participants wanted to prove it, yes, any conclusive evidence would have been their will, not God's will. God is not a light-switch.

Right. It depends, doesn't it (?) on the interpretation of whoever was there, etc.,

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The soul that sins dies means that the soul that sins will not have eternal life. Eternal life is a state of the soul that is close to God.
Eternal life comes from believing in Jesus because by believing in Jesus one knows God and is close to God (in heart and mind)...........................................

Earth is the home for humans while they are living in a physical body, but after humans die their bodies decompose and go back to the Earth and their soul (spirit) returns to God.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it....................................................​

Yes, without a future resurrection (Acts 24:15; John 6:40, 44) the soul that sins dies will Not have eternal life ( either in Heaven or on Earth )
Yes, Earth is the home for humans (example Adam and Eve) while in a physical body, but after they died they returned to dust (Gen. 3:19 )
A person can Not ' return ' to a place he never was before. Adam started from dust and Adam went back returning to where he started: dust.
Adam went from non-life, to life, and returned back to non-life. Adam (ALL of Adam) then became extinct.
Yes, one's spirit ( it ) returns to God - Ecc. 12:7 B (Notice one's spirit is a genderless neuter " it " ....... God who gave ' it ' )
Just like a high-spirited horse is animated because it has life's active spirit. An active force animating the horse.
Just like a pep rally is designed to create school spirit because it creates a lively active spirit at the pep rally.
So, one's spirit "it" returns to God in the sense a foreclosed house returns to the owner.
The house does Not move or go anywhere but any future for the house now lies in the hands of the owner.
So, any future for humans now lies in God's safe hands until Resurrection Day.
Resurrection Day meaning Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth for a thousand years.
That is when ' death ' will be No more on Earth - 1st Cor. 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8
Blessed are the meek because they will inherit the Earth - Matt. 5:5 from Psalm 37:9-11, 29

 

[YoursTrue]

False. Ehrman believes that Jesus existed. He wrote an entire book saying so! Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia.

"Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In this book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[1][2]​

​

...​

​

"He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.[1]​

​

You need to double check these things before stating what is obviously false.

You've lost this debate already, or at the least you can't cite Ehrman as supporting your view Jesus never existed. He flatly rejects that idea.

Many people that are scholars accept the FACT that Jesus existed in the first century. The question is (not in my mind anymore) did he do what the Bible says he did? I believe he did for various reasons. But we all must make up our minds.