Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I totally get where you’re coming from with your research on Jesus being a myth—it’s interesting stuff, and I respect that you’ve put thought into it and that everyone’s entitled to their own views.

That said, I’ve looked into this a bit too, and the overwhelming consensus among professional historians and scholars of antiquity (people with PhDs in ancient history, classics, and New Testament studies who’ve spent decades rigorously studying primary sources in original languages) is that a historical Jesus—a Jewish preacher from 1st-century Galilee who was baptized by John and crucified under Pontius Pilate—did exist.

This includes secular, agnostic, atheist, Jewish, and Christian experts alike; virtually none of them consider the full myth theory credible. They see it as a fringe position, like young-earth creationism in biology or flat-earth in geography—not because of bias, but because the evidence (Paul’s early letters, independent Gospel traditions, mentions in Josephus and Tacitus, etc.) points strongly to a real person behind the later stories.

These scholars have unbelievably rigorous training and apply the same critical methods to Jesus as to any other ancient figure (like Socrates or Tiberius), and they’re far more qualified than either of us to weigh the evidence.

I’m not trying to change your mind or argue—I just wanted to share why I’m personally convinced by the expert consensus on this specific question (whether he existed as a human, not whether he was divine or did miracles—that’s a totally separate theological issue).[/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