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]Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased [i]against[/i] finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did: 
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish 
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s [by itself] more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty. 
- ???
[/quote]

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics 
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof. 
[/quote]

This is a dumb argument. Ehrman, Levine and the others have spent their careers studying religion, but they disagree strongly with various aspects of theology. Yet they all agree with certainty that Jesus existed.

Also a dumb argument: that nobody here cited any classicists or historians. Refer to the post at 17:44 about Paul Meier and Michael Grant (who used more than the gospels to examine the gospels, don't just go by his book's title, jeez).

Also a dumb argument: that the gospels somehow don't count.

Also a dumb argument: that the gospels were the only source. As has been repeated here again and again, these scholars used external sources and linguistic evidence as well.

Let's quote Bart again: “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/ .  Y

1-2 trolls on DCUM, with no scholarly credentials or evidence, disagree. Hmmm, who should we believe?[/quote]

Of course, the gospels don’t count. You can’t independently prove something by using it as evidence. And if your “source” includes supernatural events then that eliminates any credibility.

If you ask thousands of people who study the NT if Jesus existed, of course they will all say yes. 
[/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