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]The poster demanding “hard” evidence doesn’t have a degree and has never participated in higher education on any level. [/quote]

Yet s/he's insulted to be compared to Holocaust deniers and flat earthers when anybody points out that she's way outside the consensus among actual scholars.[/quote]

More ad hominems.

We have physical evidence and eye-witness reports. [b]And no one here has denied he existed.[/b]  [/quote]

Enough with the games. We can all see through your word games.

You think there's some chance, let's say 1-10%, that Jesus did NOT exist. That's why you keep moaning about the lack of archeological evidence.

So, obviously, whether or not you say "I deny," you think there's room for denial.

[/quote]

Again, I think he most likely existed. There is compelling evidence.

We don't have hard evidence though - not surprising given the time/location/person.

We do have hard evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth. Not really a meaningful comparison, even if someone were denying his existence. 
[/quote]

“hard evidence” is not a scholarly or academic term.

That’s a term you are using to make your own criteria up. [/quote]

What term should we use for “independent, eye-witness accounts or archaeological artifacts”? 
[/quote]

Historians classify the different types of evidence they use into four groups: Written Evidence, Oral Evidence, Visual Evidence and Physical Evidence.

Sorry, no “hard evidence” classification. That’s your term, and as you are not a scholar, academic, professor, historian, researcher, etc, you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about.

You are probably the same pp who uses (incorrectly) the legal term “circumstantial evidence,” which is not a kind of evidence scholars, historians, researchers, academics, professors, etc, use in their work.

[/quote]

It wasn’t a single reviewer who said things diametrically opposed to what you said. It was every single reviewer among hundreds. So, you’re not just lying about Wilson, you’re also lying about what people say about him. [/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