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
Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars. |
Anonymous
|
Data and evidence used in academic research differs from evidence used in the legal system. The pps asking for “hard evidence” and complaining that the evidence the scholars and academics use in the historicity of Jesus Christ is “circumstantial evidence” reflects that they don’t understand the difference.
They haven’t attended college, worked hard to earn a degree, and had to do research… much less learn ancient languages, translate ancient manuscripts, etc. Scholars and academics use things like: scholarly essays that analyze original works Passages of text Primary Sources (photos, letters, maps, official documents, etc.) Other books or articles that interpret primary sources or other evidence Books or articles that interpret data and results from other people’s original experiments or studies. Results from one’s own field research (including interviews, surveys, observations, etc.) Data from one’s own experiments Statistics derived from large studies It is important to remember that evidence NEVER speaks for itself. Any evidence used to support a position must be explained. Its’s probably trolling, plus lack of understanding, that drives their behavior. When I saw repeated comments asking for “hard evidence” and complaining the evidence these academics use as “circumstantial” I knew these were children or adults who don’t have a formal education. They can continue to troll and/or display they don’t know what they are talking about, and play the victim and say they are being attacked, but that’s not true at all. |
Anonymous
More ad hominems. We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. And no one here has denied he existed. |
Anonymous
There is no evidence that he didn’t exist (that would be even more difficult than proving he did), so he wouldn’t be taken seriously if he did that. No fame. No money. There’s nothing “in it” for him. Most academics are seeking “the truth”. Sometimes that truth is influenced by their background and deep-seated beliefs. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Puhleeze. With book titles like "Jesus, Interrupted" and 4-5 course offerings on The Great Courses, Bart is definitely in it at least partly for the money. You keep mentioning "their background" in NT studies. But you still have zero explanation why that, alone, would cause Bart to believe Jesus existed. If anything, long familiarity often causes people to doubt. I work in a research field. You don't understand what motivates researchers. |
Anonymous
Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games. You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence. So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial. |
Anonymous
| There's so much more evidence for Jesus than for Moses or David. |
Anonymous
So they all have ulterior motives to get rich and famous? |
Anonymous
Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence. We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person. We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence. |
Anonymous
I never said that. If I were the shrill atheist here (you?) I'd accuse you of lying. Atheists are motivated by a lot of things, and different atheists are motivated by different things. But yes, achieving academic acclaim from your peers is definitely motivational for most academics. Money may or may not be. In Bart's case, with all his books with snarky titles, I suspect money is motivating but I don't know. Clearly he wants the scholarly acclaim piece. And debunking all the evidence you aren't convinced by would be a good way to do it. |
Anonymous
“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term. That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up. |
Anonymous
Weird, all the reviews seem to have read a completely different book. For example, here's one atheist reviewer complaining: "Unfortunately, A.N. Wilson goes to great lengths to convince the readers that Paul was a wonderful man and a religious genius, and that everyone who believes that Paul was a self-serving trouble maker must have misunderstood the Bible." Also, Wilson wrote his book in 1997 but then in April 2009, he published an article in the Daily Mail affirming his rediscovery of faith, and conversion to Christianity, attacking at the same time both academic and media atheists. |
Anonymous
PS, that was from Amazon and that review is the third or fourth down. The others aren't much different. |
Anonymous
Amazon reviews are hard evidence? Who knew. |