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][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]^^^ 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)[b] not denying - just saying we don’t have evidence [/b]

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

Parse this for us, please. Saying "we don't have evidence"
1. Flies in the face of the evidence above, which you cavalierly dismiss as biased or irrelevant.
2. Opens the door wide to denial.[/quote]

Denying means that you think someone made it up. Realistically, I don’t think someone made it up.

We just don’t have hard evidence. 
[/quote]

The "vast historical consensus" thinks the evidence is solid, that Jesus existed with certainty.

Without using cheap words like "biased" and "irrelevant," can you explain why you disagree? (Honestly, calling Bart Ehrman biased [i]in favor [/i]of finding Jesus existed is the funniest thing I've read today.)

Feel free to lean on your credentials and scholarly work on the field to back up your, ahem, opinions.[/quote]

What is Bart’s background? What did he do up until he became an atheist? What did he do after he became an atheist.

Do you know what bias means? [/quote]

Bart hasn't been religious for 20-30 years. If anything, if he could disprove Jesus' existence he would, because he could make even more money and go down in history.

Do you know what bias means?[/quote]

What has he been doing over those years? He’s still deep into NT analysis. His bias isn’t explicit.

I know someone on here is his #1 fan but he isn’t independent or unbiased. 
[/quote]

He's deep into NT analysis in order to DISPROVE it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You need to explain how, in Bart's case, doing NT analysis to disprove Christian theology counter-intuitively makes Bart a champion for Jesus existing. Because in Bart's case it makes no sense.[/quote]

Also in Bart's case there would be plenty more money made if he could prove Jesus never existed. That's what bias is about.

You're the one focussing on Bart. You keep avoiding explaining why Jewish scholars Levine and Fredericton are "biased" in favor of Jesus' existence.  \[/quote]

Some poster is crazy obsessed with him and posts about him incessantly.
[/quote]

Because atheist pp's are unable to find bias with the other two of the original trio, Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen, who also argue it's certain Jesus existed.

Bart has written a book on the certain existence of Jesus. Bart also promotes himself constantly, to NPR and everywhere else. So it's easier to find quotes from Bart than from the thousands of ivory tower academics. [/quote]

All three are NT scholars, not independent historians.

And neither Jewish woman is a traditionally Jewish. One was formerly Catholic. Was one even a Jew for Jesus? I don’t have their bios open right now. 
[/quote]

Which one was formerly Catholic?[/quote]

I just went back 10 pages and still couldn't find my links. Maybe if some nut wasn't obsessively posting irrelevant quotes and images it'd be easier to find. Anyway. Google them. It's not hard to find. 
[/quote]

why are the quotes irrelevant?[/quote]

Most are off topic - deniers, flat earthers, etc. [/quote]

It’s not off topic. How is comparing people who deny the historical existence of Jesus to other loons irrelevant?

“So in one sense I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot.” 
━━ Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University, on Larry Hurtado’s Blog. 
[Report Post]

Anonymous

“This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.” 
━━ Maurice Casey, Nottingham University, in Jesus of Nazareth

In short, the abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are like the deniers of climate change.” [/quote]

It’s off-topic because no one is denying his existence. 
[/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