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]*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did. 
[/quote]

[b]Source?[/b][/quote]

you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist.  Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.

And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.[/quote]

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[/quote]

I'm sure that's true. But until you lay out their evidence, I'm telling you it's all circumstantial.  And I'm saying this as someone who is more than willing to believe he did exist. But not because of any direct evidence.[/quote]

[b]Eddy and Boyd say the best history can assert is probability, yet the probability of Jesus having existed is so high,[/b] Ehrman says "virtually all historians and scholars have concluded Jesus did exist as a historical figure."[38]: 12, 21 [39] Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[40] In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."[41]: 15–22

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Historical_existence[/quote]

Maybe we can all just agree then the probability is high? [/quote]

It’s so high that those who deny His existence are fringe whackos, yes. [/quote]

or they just don't care much - and don't believe he's the son of god.[/quote]

Not caring is different than being a nut that doesn’t believe facts. I don’t care about tons of stuff; but my non-care doesn’t make it untrue.

The fact that Jesus walked the earth and his baptism and execution are undeniable historical facts really makes some people uncomfortable. They can’t stop talking about it, and trying to pretend they don’t care Jesus existed.[/quote]

Undeniable?

Some convincing theories, sure. But no hard facts.

So [i]most likely[/i] he lived. 
[/quote]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Scholars of antiquity don’t accept that Jesus lived based on some convincing theories. Their opinions are the ones that count. What are your qualifications to negate the mentions of Jesus in extra-biblical texts that exist and are supported as genuine by the majority of historians? (In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 256-257)

Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed". The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, p. 145

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p.{{}}200

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pp. 35–36 states that the theories of the non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 p. 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

[/quote]

DP here.

You understand that everything you posted comports with what you are responding to?[/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