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]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]

Goalposts moved. Unsuccessfully.

Paul knowing James and Peter IS historical evidence. The linguistic evidence Ehrman and others cite IS historical evidence. [/quote]

If we wanted to discuss the theology around Jesus, then we'd consult a theologist.

We are discussing the historicity. What is the consensus from independent historians? Are they 100% certain he existed?

Just because you didn't understand the assignment doesn't mean the goalposts were moved. 
[/quote]

So Bart telling you that thousand of scholars—read: independent historians and theologians—believe Jesus existed isn’t good enough for you. Instead you just want to string this out forever playing 20 questions and issuing childish demands for more and more cites. Got it. [/quote]

Translation: pp doesn’t like that even Bart the leading atheist says the scholarly concensus is on 100% that Jesus existed. So instead they want to quibble about who is a “scholar” and issue endless demands for more and more evidence. [/quote]

Should be pretty easy to line up those independent/unbiased opinions. If there is a consensus that he 100% existed. 
[/quote]

Maybe not so easy after all. 
[/quote]

From those Wikipedia links, at least these non-Christians, with no reason to say Jesus existed, so say Jesus existed. Can’t be bothered to go through them all and I’m sure you didn’t either.

But they’re all definitely independent and unbiased. If anything they’re all biased against:
- Bart Ehrman is an atheist and describes himself as a historian https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case
- Amy Jill Levine is Jewish
- Paula Fredickson is Jewish

We should believe you instead, why? What are your scholarly credentials? [/quote]

I know how to read. Where did Ehrman go to college? What did he study? 
[/quote]

It’s amusing to watch you try to argue that Ehrman is 
1. Not independent
2. not a scholar, and 
3. Biased in favor of finding Jesus existed.

Pretzel much?[/quote]

He’s definitely biased. He was uber Christian for most of his life. His doctorate was about the New Testament.

Not employed by the history department:
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/
[/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