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]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]

Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?[/quote]

I'm not saying they are wrong.

I just have a different threshold for "100% certain". I also highly doubt that most would say "100% certain" about anything in ancient history. 
[/quote]

But your qualifications to evaluate any evidence is sorely lacking. [/quote]

What evidence? There is no hard evidence to evaluate. 
[/quote]

There is, but you can’t evaluate any of it because you can’t read or speak the languages it was written in. [/quote]

+1. Atheist pp need to come up with scholarly arguments to oppose the scholarly arguments put forth by every single other classical and Biblical scholar.

Misunderstanding how courts and scholars use direct and indirect evidence isn't a reason (especially when atheist pp misdefines these words from the get-go). "I just don't wanna believe Jesus existed" isn't a reason. [/quote]

No reputable scholar has claimed that we have primary sources.

No independent, eye witness accounts. (Paul isn't independent or an eye witness)

No archeological evidence.

[/quote]

You seriously don’t know what you are talking about.[/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