Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
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:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
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]“I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament’s claim that Jesus existed.” ━━ Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web.[/quote] This supports “most likely” existed. “Prima facie”, which means gives the impression. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prima-facie[/quote] Good one. You found a single quote and picked out two words from it, ignoring the rest of the quote. And ignoring all the other quotes, and the linguistic and external evidence cited above. As a classical scholar, you must know that's not how it works.[/quote] He doesn’t say he’s certain, just that at the surface it looks like it’s true so let’s treat it like other writings and don’t worry about certainty. The linguistic analysis of…the gospels? We did cover that. [/quote] Sure we covered the linguistic analysis of the gospels. You seem to be alone, among thousands of scholars, in thinking it doesn't count for anything. You never explained your disagreement convincingly, though. [/quote] The analysis has shown: - some writings came from approximately that era - many people were talking about him - some details about Jewish life in that era were correct What else was there? [/quote] Now you're just trolling. From 10:57: Linguistic evidence Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.” ... [a story about Bart's German professor giving German anecdotes] ... This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples. Traditions Stemming from Aramaic The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek. My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner. But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for? The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans. Reality Check: Jesus Existed Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem. But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. [bolding added] You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, for example.[/quote] Riiiiiiiight. Did you actually read it? Like I said, the linguistic analysis has shown: - some writings came from approximately that era (Aramaic language) - many people were talking about him (in other writings) - some details about Jewish life in that era were correct (comparing with Jewish texts) [b]No one said someone made him up. [/b] [/quote] Of course you didn't say somebody made Jesus up. It would be embarrassing to say this. The problem is, you're afraid to acknowledge the consequences of your claim that Jesus might not have existed (let's translate your "likely existed" into a 1-10% probability Jesus did not exist). Namely, if there's some chance Jesus didn't exist, then SOMEONE MUST HAVE MADE HIM UP. Does that help? Sorry for the caps, but it seems so necessary in your case.[/quote] I wouldn’t say someone made him up because I think that’s highly unlikely. I do think he very likely lived. We just don’t have hard evidence. [/quote] You are not smart enough, well trained enough, educated enough, etc, to pass judgment on the evidence. What are your degrees and credentials? What have you authored or published? Where and what have you researched? Do you have any degree, at all? In anything?[/quote] Seems like it’s easier for you to throw out ad hominems than produce hard evidence. [/quote] So you don’t even have a BS or BA, or an Associates degree, but you are telling every scholar and academic in the western world who teach other scholars and know multiple languages and have written books and conducted research in the Middle East, they are wrong?[/quote] More ad hominems. Which ones claimed we have hard evidence? [/quote] No one believes you and your no degree over every academic and scholar in the western world. You look foolish to them. They get embarrassed when they hear your feeble and misguided demands for “evidence.”[/quote] Maybe this is the big difference between believers and non-believers. Believers are willing to blindly just believe what other people tell them. Non-believers want evidence. [/quote] Evidence has been provided.[/quote] Evidence that strongly suggests that he lives? Yes. Hard evidence such as independent, eye-witness accounts and/or archaeological artifacts? No. [/quote] You probably post here alot because IRL you don’t have any credibility. People who know evidence have all they need. You are too poorly educated to understand that. [/quote] More ad hominems. You believe that we have independent, eye-witness accounts and/or archaeological artifacts? Please cite. [/quote] Do you have any degree from a credentialed institution?[/quote] People (especially adult people) who aren’t educated don’t make rules for scholars and academics.[/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
