Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
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:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. (Nicholas Perrin) Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus’ non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio. (Michael James McClymond) One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust? (Bart Ehrman) The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. (John Piper) The Criteria of Authenticity are different methods of demonstrating the historical plausibility and probability of an event. When it comes to the study of the historical Jesus, if a saying of Jesus or event in the Gospels meets one or more of these criteria, it boosts the credibility of the event in question. We will explore and define each of these in more detail, but consider three of the criteria below: The criterion of multiple attestation. If a saying or event is recorded in several different independent sources, it increases the likelihood that it occurred. The criterion of dissimilarity (or double dissimilarity). If a saying or event of Jesus is different from the Judaism before him and also the early Christians after him, then it is more likely that Jesus himself originated this particular saying. The criterion of embarrassment. If a saying or event is potentially unflattering or even embarrassing to Jesus or the Christian movement, then it is unlikely that it would be invented. Thus this raises the historical plausibility of the event in question. These criteria are internal tests that can support the historicity of an event. Indeed, if we see enough of these sort of criteria, it boosts our confidence in the historical document overall. [/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