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]^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!

Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table.[/quote]

Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations.

The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof.

Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again?

[/quote]

"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant."

Remind us about your scholarly credentials again....[/quote]

If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence.

The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased. 
[/quote]

Nobody's inferring from the Aramaic residuals in the gospels, Bart actually points them out in the link you didn't read. Nobody's inferring Paul's friendship with Peter, James and John. Nobody's inferring the lack of Jewish denials that Jesus existed--but if you have it, you should definitely show it to academia! It's simple logic to say there must have been hundreds of people talking about Jesus across the Mediterranean within a decade of his death. And so on.

What are your scholarly credentials again?[/quote]

“No one denied his existence” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

“People heard stories about him” isn’t direct evidence of his existence.

It’s inferred, but it’s not direct. [/quote]

So, revered scholar, your inference is that some mastermind centuries later made up the Aramaic parts of the gospels and inserted them for versimilitude? Who was that, and what strong evidence do you have?[/quote]

No, I’m not saying they were made up. Just that it’s not direct evidence of his existence. That does prove that someone who authored portions of the gospel spoke Aramaic.

He most likely existed, we just don’t have direct evidence. Not surprising given the time & location. 
[/quote]

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).35

Who is the “we” in your post? Who are you speaking for, besides yourself?[/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