If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Things in the Bible line up with things non-Christian historians wrote. |
Anonymous
It doesn’t look more that way no matter how many random articles PP posts. |
Anonymous
|
We know the prophet Joseph Smith was a real historical figure. Lots of evidence he existed. Why don’t all Christians believe his Book of Mormon?
Because they like their story better. |
Anonymous
Practically all historians and scholars of Scripture agree that someone named Jesus of Nazareth did live in the 1st Century AD, and that he left behind a group of disciples who came to be called Christians. |
Anonymous
|
Scholars of scripture think he lived? Shocker.
Some historians may *believe* that he lived (and he certainly had a following), but they don’t *know* he existed. |
Anonymous
The vast majority of scholars think he lived. You don’t look great when you repeat your talking points ad nauseum instead of addressing pp’s links. |
Anonymous
All historians, too. So, all historians in the Western world are incorrect? Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived the first part of his life in Palestine before AD 70, is quoted in his “Jewish Antiquities” as referring to Jesus. Josephus describes him as a miracle worker who appeared to his disciples after his death. The text as it stands is so positive that scholars suggest that it may have been tampered with by a later Christian scribe. Yet many experts, including Jewish historians such as Shlomo Pines and Louis Feldman, judge that a simpler reference to Jesus by Josephus does lie behind the present text. In the early 2nd Century, the pagan historian Tacitus mentions in his “Annals” that “Christ, the founder of the Christian movement,” was executed by Pontius Pilate in Judea. Later rabbinical literature also contains a few scattered references to “Yeshu,” or “Yeshua"(Jesus)--though these texts were written centuries after the time of Jesus. An important point to notice is that while Tacitus, the pagan satirist Lucian (2nd Century), and later rabbis are for the most part negative in their references to Jesus, none denies his existence. Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Stanton (2002, p. 145): 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. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. Wells (2007, p. 446):"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure. Ehrman (2012b, pp. 4–5): "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." |
Anonymous
That's only 83 years later. It's like saying anybody's report of stuff that happened in 1939 (WWII) isn't credible unless it was written in 1939. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning is it. |
Anonymous
None definitively say he existed. But the prophet Joseph Smith definitely existed. Why don’t you follow his Book of Mormon? How do you pick which prophet to believe? Which story do you like best? |
Anonymous
False. |
Anonymous
|
So whoever told Tacitus and Josephus this story was convincing. Neither met him or saw him work “miracles”.
But that’s all you’ve got. A convincing story that people chose to believe. No way to actually know if it is true. |
Anonymous
You know what? You can go out on your own little limb and sit there all by yourself. If that makes you happy. As pp posted above, the vast majority of scholars with real qualifications disagree with you. |
Anonymous
An eyewitness account was written by John - the Book of John. He actually wrote in there that he was the eyewitness, and it was his personal account. |
Anonymous
| There's no contemporaneous evidence of the existence of Socrates. Perhaps law schools should quit using the Socratic method. |
Anonymous
Hey..PP, you seemed to have missed the point. Being Christian doesn't validate any myth. |