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]Even Bart Ehrman says: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed."
https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

Ehrman also says this: But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus?  These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean.  They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/[/quote]

Bumping because pp with a page of irrelevant basic stats links is obviously trolling really hard to get away from it.

One of the best arguments for Jesus’ existence—from a leading atheist. [/quote]

[i]"Paul is [u]probably pretty good[/u] evidence"[/i]

[i]"They each have heard about ... which heard about him from their own sources"[/i]

Bumping my response: 
"probably pretty good evidence" is not definitive. Not 100%.

So none of the "sources" were eyewitnesses. They only "knew" thirdhand information, at best.[/quote]

Again, Paul knew two crucial eye witnesses, Jesus’ brother and one of the most important disciples.

In the second link, Ehrman’s very first sentence is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right.  Jesus did exist.”  https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset-if-the-mythicists-were-right-that-jesus-never-existed/[/quote]

Ehrman is a theologist trying to get press.

What do the independent historians (not theologists) say? 
[/quote]

Bart E is an ATHEIST

No scholars or academics in the western world who are teaching or publishing doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ.[/quote]

He's a theologist. He happens to not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, but he's not a trained historian.

Which independent/unbiased scholars say "100% certain"? 
[/quote]

So you chose to ignore the post right above yours that gave scholars’ names. Cute. I’ll repost it for you.

Dozens of independent scholars who agree Jesus existed can be found in the Sources section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus . Have a blast.

What will you guys try to quibble about next? What word (“scholar”) or definition (“probability”)?

Or, you could just accept that Jesus existed and find something better than trolling to do with your time. [/quote]

Did you notice the time stamps? [/quote]

More bs. Nobody cares if the time stamps are several decades old. Independent scholarship is independent scholarship. [/quote]

I meant the timestamps of the posts. They were posted at the same time. 
[/quote]

Somebody uploaded posts at the same time? Who cares?

You still lost the argument about the vast scholarly concensus that Jesus existed. [/quote]

I fully agree that thousands of theologists believe he existed. If you had evidence of thousands of unbiased, independent "scholars" then you might have something.

Anyway, no one can say with 100% certainty because we don't have decent sources. Contemporary, first-hand, unbiased sources. 
[/quote]

You keep trying to redefine “scholars” as being somehow exclusively “theologians.” We see you.

Paul knowing Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciple Peter, and writing about them, is pretty darn decent. As Ehrman says, James would have told Paul if he didn’t have a brother called Jesus.

Plus Ehrman and others cite 30 other sources and a lot of linguistic evidence for Jesus’ existence.

But hey, if you want to join the extreme fringe of “foolish” deniers and die on the hill of not having CNN cameras trained on Jesus, then you do you. Maybe make yourself a tinfoil hat too?[/quote]

“probably pretty good evidence” - so convincing.

He was using the gospels as a source. 
[/quote]

You keep fixating on this single Ehrman quote and ignoring these:

Ehrman’s very first sentence in this blog is simply “Jesus existed.” He goes on to cite 30 sources and also some linguistic evidence.

Ehrman also says this: “I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.” https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-personally-upset...ight-that-jesus-never-existed/

What are you afraid of? How’s that tinfoil hat coming along? Or are you just trolling?[/quote]

Bumping [/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