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]We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia.  Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here[/quote]

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is. 
[/quote]

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”. 
[/quote]

Where is your evidence? Of what you believe? [/quote]

My beliefs are based on a lack of unbiased, contemporaneous evidence. Without that, as PP said, most of us think it’s “very likely” he existed. 
 [/quote]

I’m the pp who said “very likely.” You keep quoting me as if I meant something like 60% likelihood. That’s not at all what I meant. To prevent you from continuing to misuse my post, I’m clarifying it to “extremely likely,” i.e. close to 100%.

As a side note, it’s weird that you’ve glommed onto a single post from an anonymous person on the interwebs (my post) as your “truth.” At the same time, you dismiss the hundreds of real scholars who have studied ancient languages and sources, including skeptics like Ehrman. I’ve read some of those scholars (unlike you), I respect them, and that’s why my “very” was intended to convey near-100% certainty. Please stop misusing my post. [/quote]

I’ve been saying it’s very likely long before your post.

Your post and the ones following felt like consensus on this thread. That’s why I keep referring to it.

Yes, [b]we don’t know 100%.[/b] Totally agree. 
[/quote]

Wrong. Again you’re distorting what I and others have said. Your language around “we don’t know 100%” is very different from the language I and others are using, that “we know with 99.9% certainty.” I do statistics, among other things, for a living. Go back and review statistics. Shade in some squares on graph paper if you need to.

Further, most of us including me are giving you that 0.1% uncertainty only because nothing in life is certain, and (unlike you) we’re honest like that. The academic research is clear, though.

Obviously your “we don’t know 100%” language keeps the thread alive and satisfies some deep need you have to troll. [/quote]

I'm good with statistics, thanks. And "99.9%" is "not 100%".

So when I say there is some uncertainty I'm being [u]dishonest[/u], but when you say there is some uncertainty you are being [u]honest[/u]? Explain that.

Why shouldn't I respond to your posts? 
[/quote]

Since you enjoy weasel wording, there is very little uncertainty, not some.[/quote]

+1. Almost no uncertainty would work too. Some people even say zero uncertainty. The poster who keeps claiming “some uncertainty” is the same thing is either bad with English, dishonest, or trolling. [/quote]

“Some” is accurate. Maybe not precise, but it’s accurate.

[i]some
/səm/

1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
[/i][/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