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][/quote][/quote]
Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")
[/quote]

Most of Casey's arugments - Paul's letters, criterion of embarrassment, and Josephus - have already been refuted with supporting reasoning.

Going back to a prior post:

"Cut through the historicist dogma and apply some rigorous skepticism to the so-called evidence. You keep asserting the same points as scholarly consensus while omitting key details or [b]presenting contested interpretations as fact[/b]. Those same scholars do debate the deep methodological flaws in mainstream scholarship.

The "consensus" is often a circular argument within a field heavily populated by people of faith, who have a vested interest in a historical figure.

...

If Jesus had been a famous earthly preacher, Paul would likely have mentioned these things to add authority to his message. Where are the references to Jesus’ most important speech, the Sermon on the Mount? How would Paul be completely unaware or not mention it given how important it is to Christianity? In fact, Paul never mentions any of Jesus’ parables or teachings. As a leader in the early movement responsible for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire, he was completely unaware of these core aspects?

Different post:

Paul shows no knowledge of Nazareth, Bethlehem, a virgin birth, an earthly ministry in Galilee, specific miracles, twelve disciples, Judas' betrayal, or teachings like the Sermon on the Mount. His "brother of the Lord" is likely a spiritual brother, not a biological one, consistent with Paul's focus on spiritual family. And, Paul explicitly states his gospel came not from "flesh and blood" (human sources) but from "revelation" (Galatians 1:11-12).

...

The historicist model requires us to believe that the earliest sources knew the least about the most important historical figure of their time, while later, non-eyewitness, anonymous sources knew everything.

(my own aside - Mark, the first Gospel, was most likely written after the destruction of the 2nd temple, far away (probably Rome) in Greek (not Aramaic - the language of the time and place of the supposed events). It would be like an event happening in LA, and 35-40 years later, someone in Houston decides to write a story about the event without the benefit of any recorded written materials or sources.)

[/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