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][youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww[/youtube]

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter.  He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization 
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

[/quote]

Just watch this every time you need answers. [/quote]

DP. Pulling this out from somebody's Bart Ehrman post for the atheist who keeps yammering about direct evidence. Atheist pp is like an ostrich with her head in the sand, a foolish ostrich. The author Bart is referring to who knew Jesus' brother and closest disciple is Paul. Bolding is mine.

"The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; [b]one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.[/b]

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because,[b] frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world." [/b][/quote]

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant. 
[/quote]

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up. [/quote]

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus. 
[/quote]

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up. [/quote]

I think he [b]most likely[/b] existed. There is a lot of supporting, indirect evidence.

Paul is neither independent or an eye witness to Jesus. 
[/quote]

So, you think there's some slim probability the mythicists are right and Jesus didn't exist. Got it.

(Sorry, your transparent word games can't substitute for basic logic.)[/quote]

Those are not the only two possibilities. 
[/quote]

What are the third or fourth possibilities?

This should be good....[/quote]

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history. 
[/quote]

You have no idea, but the experts do. [/quote]

They have interpreted secondary sources. So it seems like he most likely existed.

They don’t have primary evidence. [/quote]

And what do you have?[/quote]

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty. 
[/quote]

Are you the lady Ehrman is laughing at in the video? It might explain your obsession with pretending he’s not a world class scholar and atheist. He publicly embarrassed you and now whenever you are reminded, you double down out of spite and embarrassment.

[/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