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]The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.[/quote]

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison. 
[/quote]

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees[/quote]

Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here? 
[/quote]

The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”

What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?[/quote]

So that’s a no? 
[/quote]

“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.” [/quote]

Right. Almost no records from that era. Not surprising. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist. But it also means that we don't have primary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archaeological artifacts. 
[/quote]

Glad you learned there is no such thing as “hard” and “soft” evidence when academics and scholars research, and that term “circumstantial” evidence is a legal term. You learned alot! [/quote]

Do we need a refresher?

Hard evidence = primary sources, eyewitness accounts, archaeological artifacts
Soft evidence = interpretations of secondary sources

Circumstantial = containing information, especially about a crime, that makes you think something is true but does not completely prove it
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/circumstantial) 
[/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