Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To the poster who keeps trying to cite scholarly consensus.  You continue the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Think of the appeal to authority as the "Because I said so!" of logical arguments. It happens when someone claims something is true because [b]an expert[/b] or a famous person says it is, instead of using actual evidence. While it's usually smart to listen to experts, it becomes a fallacy when we treat their word as proof.

History is full of such errors such as earth as center of universe (backed by the Church and interpretations of scripture) or man being separate and distinct from other animals (also based on biblical interpretation).
[/quote]

Especially when the "experts" are offering up the bible as "proof". 
[/quote]

Let's not forget that the Bible and what stories it contains is based on a vote of humans. There are other non-canon gospels and Christian beliefs that died out or were considered "unorthodox" (and ultimately suppressed), yet they also point to varying interpretations of the initial belief system about Jesus. The development of the surviving belief took hundreds of years.

Thus, to assume it is based on a consistent oral history of a living person is entirely erroneous.

What surviving evidence we do have available points to a completely fabricated "savior" based on theological interpretation necessary to explain the failure of prophecy/fulfillment of scripture. [/quote]

“Entirely fabricated savior” is a stronger claim than evidence supports. Most critical scholars (including atheists) do not conclude total fabrication.

Tacitus mentions execution under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (even accounting for interpolations) references Jesus as a known figure. Those are not Christian scripture, are hostile or neutral, and shows a real person existed. This proves the “entire fabrication” theory is false.

Christianity is a historically situated movement. Fairies and goblins are folkloric creatures without historical anchoring. The comparison is intellectually lazy.

Oral cultures can preserve core facts while mutating interpretation. That’s consistent with many historical movements.

Canon formation was a recognition process, not an invention process. Communities already using certain texts over others gradually formalized what was already dominant in practice. The four canonical gospels were already widely circulated and treated as authoritative by the mid-2nd century. Later councils largely ratified existing consensus, rather than selecting arbitrarily. Non-canonical texts often:
Appear later
Depend literarily on canonical texts
Reflect developed theology rather than primitive belief.

This doesn’t prove inspiration—but it does undermine the idea that orthodoxy was created ex nihilo by political fiat.

Total fabrication fails to explain multiple independent attestations

This is where mythicism struggles most.

Jesus is referenced by hostile or neutral sources like Tacitus and Josephus. These sources have no theological incentive. Execution under Roman authority is an embarrassing detail, unlikely to be invented. Early Christians gained no political or material advantage from invention—only persecution.

This doesn’t prove divinity, but it does strongly favor a real executed figure.

[/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