If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.

There is not much evidence to prove that some Roman emperors were real person's either
Not to mention that Moses ever lived or that Solomon lived

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.

There is not much evidence to prove that some Roman emperors were real person's either
Not to mention that Moses ever lived or that Solomon lived

Not sure which emporers you are referring to, but Moses is equal to Jesus on the historical evidence scale. There is none outside of religious scripture, which is not historical evidence by itself. Scripture is evidence that stories existed, not evidence that the subjects of the stories were real, or that if they were real, that the stories about them were true. Same for Solomon. There is actual physical evidence that King David existed, and also evidence that stories that probably weren't true about King David also existed as far back as the actual person himself existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.

Where is your source for this post? Without a source I don’t believe your post is accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.

“These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

Simon Gathercole is Reader in New Testament Studies at the University of Cambridge.

There’s very little reasonable doubt Christ lived. Post your source that states that there’s no convincing evidence Christ existed.

[Anonymous]

*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

“Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Historical_existence

As long as you accept you are a fringe nutter, ok, Jesus denier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

I'm sure that's true. But until you lay out their evidence, I'm telling you it's all circumstantial. And I'm saying this as someone who is more than willing to believe he did exist. But not because of any direct evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

Ok. They agree that he *mostly likely* existed. We don’t have definitive evidence that he existed.

And, as the PP already mentioned (and should be common knowledge?), you can’t prove a negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

I'm sure that's true. But until you lay out their evidence, I'm telling you it's all circumstantial. And I'm saying this as someone who is more than willing to believe he did exist. But not because of any direct evidence.

Eddy and Boyd say the best history can assert is probability, yet the probability of Jesus having existed is so high, Ehrman says "virtually all historians and scholars have concluded Jesus did exist as a historical figure."[38]: 12, 21 [39] Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[40] In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."[41]: 15–22 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Historical_existence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

Ok. They agree that he *mostly likely* existed. We don’t have definitive evidence that he existed.

And, as the PP already mentioned (and should be common knowledge?), you can’t prove a negative.

2 fringe nutter Jesus deniers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

Ok. They agree that he *mostly likely* existed. We don’t have definitive evidence that he existed.

And, as the PP already mentioned (and should be common knowledge?), you can’t prove a negative.

2 fringe nutter Jesus deniers

Nobody denied he existed so…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.

Source?

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

Ok. They agree that he *mostly likely* existed. We don’t have definitive evidence that he existed.

And, as the PP already mentioned (and should be common knowledge?), you can’t prove a negative.

2 fringe nutter Jesus deniers

Nobody denied he existed so…

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[6][8][47][48][49] Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[50] Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[8] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[51][35]: 24–26 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Historical_existence