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:Basically dcum posters are putting themselves on par with scholars and historians of antiquity. And blanket stating how their opinions are equal to and supersede every scholar snd historian.

That’s where the skinhead Nazi holocaust denier and flat earth proponent and vaxxx denier comes in.

That’s not an attack. That’s an accurate description of your behavior.

Wow. That is a whole lot of nasty just to say you don’t have any hard evidence.

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

Using the words of an evangelical pastor doesn’t make it any less ad hominem.

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically.
The late Graham Stanton, Cambridge University

So zero original thought. Noted.

Is that how “believing” works? Less critical thinking skills = stronger “beliefs”?

That’s where the holocaust and flat earther comparison comes in and is accurate. Anti-vaxx comparison too. You have access to what that these phd level scholars and historians don’t have that disproves them all? All of them, you can disprove? And what about the non-Christian historians and scholars that believe Jesus existed? What’s your issue with them? They are not critical thinkers? They don’t have access to atheist blogs that mean absolutely nothing in the historical academic world? You have found what on the internet to disprove the atheist scholars and historians that say historical Jesus is a certainty?

There are no Christian or Atheist or Agnostic historians or scholars that are respected in their field that say Jesus did not exist. What critical thinking skills or evidence do you have to refute them?

I never said he didn’t exist.

I agree with them that he most likely existed. I think you are misreading what they are saying though (just as you continue to misread on here). No one has claimed definitive proof because there is no unbiased source that definitely proves that he existed. Just look at the language they use.

That’s just the nature of these ancient stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

You think the words and works of every respected scholar and historian quoted here is crap? Why?

Do “respected scholars” call people who disagree with them “skinheads”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

“Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ..... the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”
EP Sanders, Oxford & Duke Universities

You took a single sentence from the entire quote. Why did you do that?

Because the rest of his comment is based on his own biased views from biased sources.

But he did get that first part correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have read quite a few books by Bart Ehrman and (quite obviously) disagree with much of what he says. And yet recently I decided to read his book Did Jesus Exist? If you are looking for a book that provides a fair analysis of the evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus, and offers an informed and insightful critique of mythicism, then this book should be at the top of your list.



What is the scholarly consensus about the historical Jesus?

“Despite the enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea” (p. 12).

How seriously is mythicism taken in the academy?

“It is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the field of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology” (20).

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus" (96).

Why don’t Greek and Roman authors mention Jesus in the first century?

“It is also true…that no Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus. It would be very convenient for us if they did, but alas, they do not. At the same time, the fact is again a bit irrelevant since these same sources do not mention many millions of people who actually did live. Jesus stands here with the vast majority of living, breathing, human beings of earlier ages” (43).

“If an important Roman aristocratic ruler of a major province [Pontius Pilate] is not mentioned any more than that in the Greek and Roman writings, what are the chances that a lower-class Jewish teacher (which Jesus must have been, as everyone who thinks he lived agrees) would be mentioned in them? Almost none” (45).

“[F]rom Roman Palestine of the entire first century we have precisely one, and only one, author of literary texts whose works have survived… That one author is Josephus” [And according to Ehrman, Josephus testifies to important facts surrounding the life and death of Jesus, 49, 57-66].

How important is the historical Jesus?

“One could argue as well that Jesus is the most important person in the history of the West, looked at from a historical, social, or cultural perspective, quite apart from his religious significance” (95).

https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus-great-quotes

Yes, this explains why we don’t definitively know he existed. It’s just the nature of these ancient stories.

Most likely.

Not definitely.

[Anonymous]

who is saying Jesus wasn't a real historical figure? The premise of the thread is just a straw-man.
As far as the second part - where did Christian theology come from? - that was mostly Paul. He is the actual creator of "Christianity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who is saying Jesus wasn't a real historical figure? The premise of the thread is just a straw-man.
As far as the second part - where did Christian theology come from? - that was mostly Paul. He is the actual creator of "Christianity."

Paul had pretty substantial help from the gospels….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:who is saying Jesus wasn't a real historical figure? The premise of the thread is just a straw-man.
As far as the second part - where did Christian theology come from? - that was mostly Paul. He is the actual creator of "Christianity."

Paul had pretty substantial help from the gospels….

Mark was the first one, roughly 70 AD. Mark, interestingly to me, never mentions the virgin birth or no room at the inn stuff. Matthew and Luke are full of contradictions and inaccuracies. John .. well he's way out there in my opinion. Very different from the other three. None of them ever met Jesus or were eye-witnesses to any of the events discussed on those gospels. We don't even know who they were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:who is saying Jesus wasn't a real historical figure? The premise of the thread is just a straw-man.
As far as the second part - where did Christian theology come from? - that was mostly Paul. He is the actual creator of "Christianity."

Paul had pretty substantial help from the gospels….

Mark was the first one, roughly 70 AD. Mark, interestingly to me, never mentions the virgin birth or no room at the inn stuff. Matthew and Luke are full of contradictions and inaccuracies. John .. well he's way out there in my opinion. Very different from the other three. None of them ever met Jesus or were eye-witnesses to any of the events discussed on those gospels. We don't even know who they were.

Myths evolve over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

You think the words and works of every respected scholar and historian quoted here is crap? Why?

Do “respected scholars” call people who disagree with them “skinheads”?

Apparently climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earthers are all equivalent to historical Jesus deniers. If the comparison bothers you, perhaps look in the mirror.

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman

“This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.“

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww&feature=emb_title

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

You think the words and works of every respected scholar and historian quoted here is crap? Why?

Do “respected scholars” call people who disagree with them “skinheads”?

Apparently climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earthers are all equivalent to historical Jesus deniers. If the comparison bothers you, perhaps look in the mirror.

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman

“This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.“

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww&feature=emb_title

? why do you keep beating this dead horse? Nobody on this thread has argued Jesus doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

You think the words and works of every respected scholar and historian quoted here is crap? Why?

Do “respected scholars” call people who disagree with them “skinheads”?

Apparently climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earthers are all equivalent to historical Jesus deniers. If the comparison bothers you, perhaps look in the mirror.

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman

“This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.“

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww&feature=emb_title

? why do you keep beating this dead horse? Nobody on this thread has argued Jesus doesn't exist.

On this page there is a post that calls Jesus a myth. That’s the foolish atheist Bart is talking about. There are many here.

People who deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ look foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

You think the words and works of every respected scholar and historian quoted here is crap? Why?

Do “respected scholars” call people who disagree with them “skinheads”?

Apparently climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earthers are all equivalent to historical Jesus deniers. If the comparison bothers you, perhaps look in the mirror.

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman

“This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.“

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww&feature=emb_title

? why do you keep beating this dead horse? Nobody on this thread has argued Jesus doesn't exist.

On this page there is a post that calls Jesus a myth. That’s the foolish atheist Bart is talking about. There are many here.

People who deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ look foolish.

No. No. No. You can't read, or are being deliberately obtuse. The myths are the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles, etc. Not the existence of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

You think the words and works of every respected scholar and historian quoted here is crap? Why?

Do “respected scholars” call people who disagree with them “skinheads”?

Apparently climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earthers are all equivalent to historical Jesus deniers. If the comparison bothers you, perhaps look in the mirror.

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman

“This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.“

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww&feature=emb_title

? why do you keep beating this dead horse? Nobody on this thread has argued Jesus doesn't exist.

On this page there is a post that calls Jesus a myth. That’s the foolish atheist Bart is talking about. There are many here.

People who deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ look foolish.

WTF are you talking about? Not a single person has denied historical Jesus.

The myths are about the mythical aspects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you capable of a discussion? Or can you only copy & paste the same crap over and over again?

Here you go:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain.”

You think the words and works of every respected scholar and historian quoted here is crap? Why?

Do “respected scholars” call people who disagree with them “skinheads”?

Apparently climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earthers are all equivalent to historical Jesus deniers. If the comparison bothers you, perhaps look in the mirror.

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman

“This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.“

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww&feature=emb_title

Nobody here is denying historical Jesus. So why are you calling people “skinheads”?