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: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”?

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

If you don’t like to be grouped with holocaust deniers and climate deniers and covid deniers, then don’t talk like they do.

[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.

This poster denies historical 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

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

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

If you don’t like to be grouped with holocaust deniers and climate deniers and covid deniers, then don’t talk like they do.

This vitriol isn't doing you any favors.

People don't believe the same things you believe. Vallibgnpeope Nazis for having legitimate doubts about a person for whom our primary sources are based at least 70 years after he lived is legitimate.

Again what people doubt isn't the existence of a person named Jesus, what they doubt are the veracity of the gospels.

[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.

This poster denies historical Jesus.

Are you functionally illiterate?

The PP does not deny that historical Jesus existed.

[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

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

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

If you don’t like to be grouped with holocaust deniers and climate deniers and covid deniers, then don’t talk like they do.

It’s odd that you keep reposting this hateful evangelical quote as some sort of insult.

Each time you post it we are reminded that you still don’t comprehend what others have written - no one denied that he existed. And we are reminded that you seem incapable of original thought. You just copy & paste irrelevant quotes.

Too bad you can’t seem to muster up anything more than this same ad hominem.

[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.

This poster denies historical Jesus.

That person seems skeptical, but clearly said "Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it." It's true that there are no written records, no archeological evidence or eye-witness testimony about the Jesus -- the type things that Historians rely upon to understand the past. Without those things there is only speculation and guesswork. None of the gospel writers ever met him, nor did Josephus or Eusebius who mention him in their writings. The conclusion that he existed, which I agree with, comes from the writing and actions of Christians like Paul. There just has to be a kernel of truth to it ; I can't believe it was just an elaborate hoax. But to be clear, the evidence is circumstantial.

[Anonymous]

Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

It could also be a teenager because the arguments are not very sophisticated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Very true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Very true

If the shoe fits. Some of you are indeed hateful bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

If you don’t like to be grouped with holocaust deniers and climate deniers and covid deniers, then don’t talk like they do.

This vitriol isn't doing you any favors.

People don't believe the same things you believe. Vallibgnpeope Nazis for having legitimate doubts about a person for whom our primary sources are based at least 70 years after he lived is legitimate.

Again what people doubt isn't the existence of a person named Jesus, what they doubt are the veracity of the gospels.

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.”

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific-insights/did-jesus-of-nazareth-actually-exist-the-evidence-says-yes/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?