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]Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?

Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?[/quote]

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong. [/quote]

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant. 
[/quote]

Who is requiring hard evidence?[/quote]

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

[i]"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."[/i]
-Hershel Shanks[/quote]

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.[/quote]

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info? 
[/quote]

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

[/quote]

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it. 
[/quote]

Philosophically speaking, you can't have hard evidence of anything. Your perception of the world is through your fallible senses.[/quote]

Sure. Can we ever be absolutely certain of anything?

But eyewitnesses and archeological artifacts sure go a long way. 
[/quote]

DP. The evidence we do have is good enough for the vast majority of scholars. For example, Paul writing in 50 AD personally knew Jesus’ brother and Jesus’ two disciples Peter and John.

The fact that some DCUM rando with zero scholarly qualifications isn’t convinced is funny but irrelevant. [/quote]

Good enough to be “reasonably certain”? Sure. “Absolutely certain”? Naw.

No eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. 
[/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