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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Maybe we can all just agree then the probability is high?

It’s so high that those who deny His existence are fringe whackos, yes.

or they just don't care much - and don't believe he's the son of god.

Not caring is different than being a nut that doesn’t believe facts. I don’t care about tons of stuff; but my non-care doesn’t make it untrue.

The fact that Jesus walked the earth and his baptism and execution are undeniable historical facts really makes some people uncomfortable. They can’t stop talking about it, and trying to pretend they don’t care Jesus existed.

Undeniable?

Some convincing theories, sure. But no hard facts.

So most likely he lived.

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

Scholars of antiquity don’t accept that Jesus lived based on some convincing theories. Their opinions are the ones that count. What are your qualifications to negate the mentions of Jesus in extra-biblical texts that exist and are supported as genuine by the majority of historians? (In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 256-257)

Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed". The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, p. 145

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p.{{}}200

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pp. 35–36 states that the theories of the non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 p. 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

Right. They all agree he most likely lived.

No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bultmann (1958): “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Bornkamm (I960): “To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all . . . was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here.”

Grant (1977): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

M. Martin (1991): “Well’s thesis [that Jesus never existed] is controversial and not widely accepted.”

Marxsen (1970): “I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory ['that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure'] is historically untenable.”

Van Voorst (2000): “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”

Maier (2005): “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

R. J. Miller in Scott, ed. (Finding, 2008): “We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few hyper-historical skeptics who refuse to be convinced).”

Burridge and Could (2004): “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 any more.”

Vermes (2008): “Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion, the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still vociferously maintained in small circles of rationalist ‘dogmatists,’ far exceed those deriving from its acceptance.”

C. A. Evans in Evans and Wright (2009): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

Van Voorst (2000): “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”

Maier (2005): “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

People here posting that Jesus didn’t exist are shallow intellects, and their arguments are weak and bizarre, according to actual scholars of antiquity.

?? I haven't seen anyone say that. Some questioned the nature of the evidence, since no records were kept and no eye-witness accounts. But I haven't read anyone saying he didn't exist. That would be impossible to prove anyway. Now the real question is the virgin birth, and the resurrection, his parentage, the miracles etc. There's where you get lots of controversy.

No, that’s where the shallow intellects with fringe theories really get amped up! Failing to show the forum that Christ is a myth, they feebly shine their low watt intelligence and flog their fringe theories onto his life. It’s a damp and depressing job but apparently they can’t live without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right, but no historian will weigh in on whether he was most likely the son of god, who most likely was born in a manger, died on the cross and rose from the dead. Historians cannot affirm anything that is supernatural and therefore not in legitimate historical records.

Remember that history and religion are two different arenas. Same for science and religion.

History proves Jesus existed.
Science doesn’t have the tools or tests to prove or disprove God.
Religion is a personal belief system.

Historians can weigh in on the divinity of Jesus and give their opinion on that if they choose. It’s just their own opinion though.

Proves that he most likely existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

The evidence the historians of Antiquity use to prove Jesus was real is evidence. You of the shallow intellect can’t grasp that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right, but no historian will weigh in on whether he was most likely the son of god, who most likely was born in a manger, died on the cross and rose from the dead. Historians cannot affirm anything that is supernatural and therefore not in legitimate historical records.

Remember that history and religion are two different arenas. Same for science and religion.

History proves Jesus existed.
Science doesn’t have the tools or tests to prove or disprove God.
Religion is a personal belief system.

Historians can weigh in on the divinity of Jesus and give their opinion on that if they choose. It’s just their own opinion though.

Proves that he most likely existed.

That’s not what the historians say. That’s what you say. They say those who don’t accept the existence of Jesus are dumb kooks. You can tell they are trying to be nice about it but it’s really difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

The evidence the historians of Antiquity use to prove Jesus was real is evidence. You of the shallow intellect can’t grasp that.

In absence of actual evidence we have…ad hominem attacks. Noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

Same here. This has been a classic straw-man argument all along. Nobody said Jesus didn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

The evidence the historians of Antiquity use to prove Jesus was real is evidence. You of the shallow intellect can’t grasp that.

In absence of actual evidence we have…ad hominem attacks. Noted.

No, the evidence is so strong to prove the existence of Jesus only shallow intellects on the fringe don’t accept said evidence. Not my quote. Not an attack. A truth you refuse to accept, but I don’t expect a lot from people who pretend they stack up to scholars of antiquity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

Same here. This has been a classic straw-man argument all along. Nobody said Jesus didn't exist.

If you reread the thread you will find people claiming Jesus didn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

^ now let's get on to the more interesting stuff. The virgin birth, the alleged census that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, the miracles, the resurrection. The nasty pp ad hominem poster doesn't want to discuss the real controversial stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right, but no historian will weigh in on whether he was most likely the son of god, who most likely was born in a manger, died on the cross and rose from the dead. Historians cannot affirm anything that is supernatural and therefore not in legitimate historical records.

Remember that history and religion are two different arenas. Same for science and religion.

History proves Jesus existed.
Science doesn’t have the tools or tests to prove or disprove God.
Religion is a personal belief system.

Historians can weigh in on the divinity of Jesus and give their opinion on that if they choose. It’s just their own opinion though.

Proves that he most likely existed.

That’s not what the historians say. That’s what you say. They say those who don’t accept the existence of Jesus are dumb kooks. You can tell they are trying to be nice about it but it’s really difficult.

Even the language around his existence - if one “accepts” the existence - informs that it’s not a hard fact. It’s an interpretation of circumstantial evidence. A belief, not a fact.

No one here is saying that he didn’t exist. He most likely did. We just can’t say definitively without hard facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

Same here. This has been a classic straw-man argument all along. Nobody said Jesus didn't exist.

If you reread the thread you will find people claiming Jesus didn’t exist.

show me. Please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

The evidence the historians of Antiquity use to prove Jesus was real is evidence. You of the shallow intellect can’t grasp that.

In absence of actual evidence we have…ad hominem attacks. Noted.

No, the evidence is so strong to prove the existence of Jesus only shallow intellects on the fringe don’t accept said evidence. Not my quote. Not an attack. A truth you refuse to accept, but I don’t expect a lot from people who pretend they stack up to scholars of antiquity.

Fact: You said I have shallow intellect.
Fact: I never denied he existed so that quote isn’t relevant.

Textbook ad hominem. Noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. They agreed only shallow intellectuals with kooky fringe ideas deny the existence in history of Jesus Christ. Are you very worried about it because you have a shallow intellect and are invested in kooky fringe theories?

No one here, including me, is denying that he existed. ??

They “accept” that he most likely lived. Which is the most we can do without hard evidence.

Same here. This has been a classic straw-man argument all along. Nobody said Jesus didn't exist.

If you reread the thread you will find people claiming Jesus didn’t exist.

show me. Please

+1

What page? Timestamp?