If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty. The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that. |
Anonymous
No one remembers when we had consensus? Good times. “The rest of us think it’s very probable he did, based on the same credible scholarship” |
Anonymous
Some poster is crazy obsessed with him and posts about him incessantly. |
Anonymous
Because atheist pp's are unable to find bias with the other two of the original trio, Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen, who also argue it's certain Jesus existed. Bart has written a book on the certain existence of Jesus. Bart also promotes himself constantly, to NPR and everywhere else. So it's easier to find quotes from Bart than from the thousands of ivory tower academics. |
Anonymous
How many times are you going to post this? And how many times will the rest of us laugh and ask what makes DCUM, without any scholarly credentials, the decider on this issue? Do you think the rest of the world cares what DCUM's unschooled atheists think? |
Anonymous
Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though. |
Anonymous
The analysis has shown: - some writings came from approximately that era - many people were talking about him - some details about Jewish life in that era were correct What else was there? |
Anonymous
Not nearly as often as the person who is posting irrelevant quotes. |
Anonymous
All three are NT scholars, not independent historians. And neither Jewish woman is a traditionally Jewish. One was formerly Catholic. Was one even a Jew for Jesus? I don’t have their bios open right now. |
Anonymous
Who is "us"? |
Anonymous
True. We don't know which sandals Jesus wore. |
Anonymous
The religious PP who posted it seemed to be speaking for everyone except the atheists. |
Anonymous
Now you're just trolling. From 10:57: Linguistic evidence Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.” ... [a story about Bart's German professor giving German anecdotes] ... This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples. Traditions Stemming from Aramaic The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek. My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner. But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for? The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans. Reality Check: Jesus Existed Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem. But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. [bolding added] You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, for example. |
Anonymous
Which one was formerly Catholic? |
Anonymous
Time to cut through all the trolling about "Bart Ehrman loves Jesus" and "'probably' is the same thing as 'certainly'" and "the only evidence is from the gospels but they don't count." How many times can you trolls repeat stuff that's patently untrue? For newcomers, here are arguments that thousands of scholars make or agree with when they claim with certainty that Jesus existed. A few pages ago, somebody else put together multiple quotes comparing those who deny Jesus to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers. |