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]Atheists spending their day, day after day, as fringe deniers. Every historian and scholar in the western world accepts Jesus historically. Anyone who doesn’t is a fringe denier and conspiracy theorist. [/quote]

Personally I enjoyed finding various unbiased, scholarly sources that agree Jesus DID exist. And using Bart Ehrman as exhibit A.[/quote]

No one linked to unbiased, independent sources. Link? [/quote]

You must have missed the post on the previous page which gave these non-Christians, who have no reason to say Jesus existed, but who do say Jesus existed. 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...ist-a-historian-makes-his-case 
- Amy Jill Levine is Jewish 
- Paula Fredricksen is a Jewish historian

Multiple links to each of them on the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Your turn. Explain why all of these people are not scholars, not independent, and instead are biased in favor of Jesus’ existence.[/quote]

All theologists.

https://as.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/people/emeriti/amy-jill-levine/
https://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/paula-fredriksen/
https://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/
[/quote]

At least two are also historians. As you know very well because you linked to them.

More crucially, none has made a career in Christian apologetics, in fact the opposite. All three have spent the past few decades trying to debunk other aspects of Christianity. As you also know.

Congrats, you get the prize for most dishonest troll on the thread. [/quote]

Watching atheist pp trying to argue that Bart Ehrman is not a scholar and is biased in favor of Christianity is worth the price of admission. [/quote]

I never said he wasn’t a scholar. Seems like you have trouble reading.

He certainly has a bias given his background. 
[/quote]

You mean his background for the past three decades attacking fundamental Christian principles? You’re hilarious.[/quote]

He only disputes the supernatural aspects. His work still assumes that the scriptures are legit sources. 
[/quote]

Nope. As has been repeated here multiple times, Ehrman uses many sources, including linguistic analysis of Aramaic and Greek texts, to make the argument for Jesus’ existence. Ehrman also doesn’t take the scriptures as entirely legit—he’s written books on why he thinks there are problems with the transmission of various supernatural elements.

Ehrman and thousands of other scholars have found no reason to doubt Paul, who wrote just a few years after Jesus that he, Paul, had met Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciple Peter.

If you have evidence that Paul was making it all up, you need to rush your evidence to Ehrman stat.

[/quote]

Nobody has evidence either way. 
[/quote]

Nope, that’s not how it works. Find a scholar who agrees with you and link to them.

Right after that, you can link to scholars who say “I accept the evidence but still sort of doubt it” and “the evidence is compelling but not definitive.”[/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