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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely a real figure. I've always thought of him as basically the televangelist of his day (minus tvs,of course). Got suckers to buy in, and here we are,

I don’t care whether you are an atheist or whatever religion; this is the dumbest take I have ever read.

Which part? So Jesus comes up to some fishermen and says throw away your nets, and hate your families, and follow me. And they go "oh, o.k." Like for real?

Just doubling down on the idiocy, I see. Keep going, why stop here with your Biblical analysis?

[Anonymous]

These are the atheist versions of skinheads who deny the holocaust and whacko scientists who say the earth is flat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

Ok? I’m sure that most evangelical pastors/theologians like Powell would believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:






These are the atheist versions of skinheads who deny the holocaust and whacko scientists who say the earth is flat.

More ad hominem…

None of the posts above deny he existed. Just that we don’t have hard evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

Ok. What is the hard evidence? Any independent, contemporary sources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.

I'm a Christian but this is just blatantly false. We know tons of well documented details of the lives of many many prominent Romans. We know details of Octavia childhood illnesses, the names of his tutors and trips he took as a teenager.

“Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”
Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

You are wrong, dcum poster. You are not even using the quote right.

Again blatantly wrong. We have a massive amount of documentation of Herod.

I mean, putting your frame.extremely narrow is a complete joke. We don't know the names of anyone at all who lived in North America at the time. But we have plenty of very well documented people in Europe and Asia, and Africa at the time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

Ok. What is the hard evidence? Any independent, contemporary sources?

Of course not. None of the original 12 apostles could read or write. Historians usually have to rely on, you know, written records.
And archaeology is, by definition, interpretation. Not that there is any archaeological evidence of Jesus either. People did get very excited by the shroud of Turin, but that was shown to be a hoax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

Ok. What is the hard evidence? Any independent, contemporary sources?

Of course not. None of the original 12 apostles could read or write. Historians usually have to rely on, you know, written records.
And archaeology is, by definition, interpretation. Not that there is any archaeological evidence of Jesus either. People did get very excited by the shroud of Turin, but that was shown to be a hoax.

You also have to point out that going out looking for proof of Jesus is conducting bad history.

If you go out doing archeology/history with a specific goal in mind, you're going to be subject to confirmation bias. Hence why Christian theological historians are suspect. They have an agenda. Whereas no one researching the life of Ahkenaten, for instance, is setting out to prove the sun disc was the one true religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

Ok. What is the hard evidence? Any independent, contemporary sources?

You are automatically discarding all the evidence seen and considered by every historians and scholar why? Because you are the atheist version of the Nazi skinhead that denies the holocaust and the atheist version of a flat earther and the atheist version of an anti-vaxxer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

Ok. What is the hard evidence? Any independent, contemporary sources?

You are automatically discarding all the evidence seen and considered by every historians and scholar why? Because you are the atheist version of the Nazi skinhead that denies the holocaust and the atheist version of a flat earther and the atheist version of an anti-vaxxer.

basically this is all you got -- the name calling. And not a shred of evidence has been mentioned on this thread to discard, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

Ok. What is the hard evidence? Any independent, contemporary sources?

You are automatically discarding all the evidence seen and considered by every historians and scholar why? Because you are the atheist version of the Nazi skinhead that denies the holocaust and the atheist version of a flat earther and the atheist version of an anti-vaxxer.

I haven’t “discarded” anything. What is the hard evidence? Independent, contemporary sources.

Why resort to name calling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.

Yup. “Never absolutely certain.”

He most likely existed.

Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

? What does this have to do with anything, you're arguing with yourself. I second the other pp's question: "why?"

Discussing the lack of hard evidence isn’t denying that he existed. It’s just saying we don’t have hard evidence.

More ad hominems.

So you think the academics and historians quoted here don’t have sufficient evidence? Why not?

Ok. What is the hard evidence? Any independent, contemporary sources?

You are automatically discarding all the evidence seen and considered by every historians and scholar why? Because you are the atheist version of the Nazi skinhead that denies the holocaust and the atheist version of a flat earther and the atheist version of an anti-vaxxer.

basically this is all you got -- the name calling. And not a shred of evidence has been mentioned on this thread to discard, so I don't know what you're talking about.

You haven’t read these scholars and their writings? So you think I personally have a dossier of evidence I myself unearthed in a dusty library and have been keeping a secret?

Refute those historians and scholars, not me.