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]^^^ 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]

^^^ Exhibit A for deniers posting on DCUM.[/quote]

Do we need definitions again? That’s not denying. 
[/quote]

You're opening up room for deniers and denying. If you don't understand that, you need to blame your high school English teacher.[/quote]

Acknowledging that there isn’t direct evidence isn’t denying. 
[/quote]

So why don't you back up and tell us your larger point. Make your point explicit. Spending days on DCUM trying (despite your own lack of credentials) to discredit thousands of scholars by calling their work irrelevant, biased, or not direct seems evidence that you're desperately trying to open up space for denying and denials.

Choose one.
1. Jesus "likely" or "probably" existed--but there's room for doubt and the deniers, even if it's small.
2. Jesus definitely existed (the "vast scholarly consensus" per Ehrman). [/quote]

A guy named Jesus most likely lived. We don’t have any direct evidence of it though. 
 [/quote]

So you're in the camp of, I dunno, 1-10% possibility of denial. Shake hands with the skinhead Holocaust deniers. [/quote]

1) not denying - just saying we don’t have evidence

2) we have hard evidence and eyewitnesses to the Holocaust so your comparison doesn’t even make sense if there was a denier [/quote]

Ehrman writes that Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century. https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/

"How many (non-self-authored) narratives do we have about the words and deeds of Josephus?  None.  How many narratives do we have of Caiaphus, the most highly placed Jew of Jesus’ day?  None.  How many narratives do we have of the words and deeds of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, the most powerful man in all of Palestine in Jesus’ day?  None.  How many narratives do we have of any of the hundreds of thousands of people living or even visiting in Palestine from the first century, apart from Jesus?  None. And so for Jesus, we have a wealth of material… https://ehrmanblog.org/the-gospels-and-the-existence-of-jesus/

[/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