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

Forum Index » Religion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1[/quote]

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence. [/quote]

[b]Who decides if evidence is "definitive?"  
[/b]
There is evidence (fact).  Whether anyone is persuaded by that evidence is up to each individual. [/quote]

We all have to decide for ourselves. For me "definitive" means direct evidence, and there isn't any.  But OTH, circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, can be very persuasive. [/quote]

You can be a Jesus truther and deny him, and join the flat earthers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Not great company to be in. [/quote]

I was just commenting on the nature of the evidence. It's not strong, but I'm not a denier either.[/quote]

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.

So those who deny Christ was a historical figure know more than every scholar in the Western world?

It’s really arrogant to think you know more than the academics and scholars who overwhelmingly agree Christ was a historical figure. They accept the evidence; why don’t you?[/quote]

DP here.  It is exceptionally distasteful for you to create a strawman and accuse PP of denial when their last sentence is literally "but I'm not a denier either"

That's flat out dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the nuance of PP's point, that's your issue entirely.[/quote]

Nuance shuance. Jesus Christ existed, and the scholars and academics accept the evidence. pp repeating repeatedly “the evidence isn’t very good!” is distasteful. The evidence is fine for the scholars and academics. If it’s not good enough for some fringe rando, they can complain daily/monthly/yearly that they don’t accept it…but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. If you personally don’t accept the evidence, you are a fringe loony. Case closed. We all agree, right? Yes, of course we do. It’s settled. Christ was a real man who walked the earth. We all agree. Thread over. [/quote]

OK fine.  And there is no evidence of his divinity.

Thread REALLY over.

[/quote]

This thread was never about that; it was about his historical being. [/quote]

Nope.  If people didn't believe he was divine, there would be no thread at all.

No evidence of his divinity.[/quote]

You lost the debate and had to admit Christ was a real man who walked the earth and his story is in the Bible. Each person can have an opinion on his divinity; on his historical being, they cannot. Create another thread for that. [/quote]

Lies.  Wrong.  And a dose of stupid as a bonus.

Never claimed the man named Jesus didn't exist, so didn't lose any debate.

Fully accept scholarship that he likely did exist.

Fully understand there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF HIS DIVINITY, and that no one would care about the former question if you accept the latter.[/quote]

The man likely existed.

His divinity isn't based on evidence - just "faith" in the supernatural. 
[/quote]

Then the question posed in the thread title is moot. [/quote]

Only if we had 100% certainty that he existed. Actual evidence. 
[/quote]

^^^ To the couple of trolls still claiming “but nobody on this thread ever said he didn’t exist,” here you go. Prima facie. [/quote]

Wow you are entirely unable to comprehend a sentence.  I can't believe you are that dense, so I can only assume you are trolling trying to get a reaction.  Mission accomplished.[/quote]

Wow, you’re abusive. And it’s also tragic that you don’t understand that using the subjunctive (“if only we had… then”) means uncertainty. Whether you know what the subjunctive is or not, and I suspect you don’t. [/quote]

No I understand perfectly. So do you but you prefer to say things you really don’t believe in order to support things you do believe. Likely and not 100% certain or not mutually exclusive in anyway.  In fact all of the percentages between 51% and 99% qualify as both. Like I said you do understand all of this you just prefer to deny it. It’s probably fine for you but we see right through it.[/quote]

49% uncertainty? Bart Ehrman would like to have a word with you.

"And Bart says this (https://www.str.org/w/bart-ehrman-on-the-existence-of-jesus): 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 [that Jesus is a myth], because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish."[/quote]

Hey liar, who claimed that number of 49% certainty?  Just you, you lying troll.  Obviously beaten, you have resorted to the time honored tradition of repeating lies often enough so they become indistinguishable from the truth.  How (NOT) christian of you.  Your Jesus would be ashamed to have you as a follower.[/quote]

49% UNcertainty. Read it again. It’s math. You gave a range of 51% to 99% certainty. This implies you think UNcertainty is 1% to 49%.

Your insults should be embarrassing to you. [/quote]

No I did not you stupid bastard.  I said a number less than 100% was still "likely" which is where the scholarship agrees.  And I said that could include any number from 51% to 99%, as any high school stats class will teach you.

You are trying to anger people and get them to give up so you get the last word for your lies.  Your first objective is working - I am angry about your stubborn and monumental stupidity - but while I am far less stupid then you I am just as stubborn, so every time you LIE I will call you a LIAR.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics