Anonymous
11/11/2022 17:47
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.
No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.
A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.
share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees
Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?
So that’s a no?
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Right. Almost no records from that era. Not surprising. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist. But it also means that we don't have primary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archaeological artifacts.
Glad you learned there is no such thing as “hard” and “soft” evidence when academics and scholars research, and that term “circumstantial” evidence is a legal term. You learned alot!
Do we need a refresher?
Hard evidence = primary sources, eyewitness accounts, archaeological artifacts
Soft evidence = interpretations of secondary sources
Circumstantial = containing information, especially about a crime, that makes you think something is true but does not completely prove it
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/circumstantial)
Anonymous
11/11/2022 17:22
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.
Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.
Wrong thread.
Nope!
See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.
Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.
Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.
Many of those same scholars also believe in the supernatural. So...
Anonymous
11/11/2022 16:52
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived the first part of his life in Palestine before AD 70, is quoted in his “Jewish Antiquities” as referring to Jesus. Josephus describes him as a miracle worker who appeared to his disciples after his death.
The text as it stands is so positive that scholars suggest that it may have been tampered with by a later Christian scribe. Yet many experts, including Jewish historians such as Shlomo Pines and Louis Feldman, judge that a simpler reference to Jesus by Josephus does lie behind the present text.
In the early 2nd Century, the pagan historian Tacitus mentions in his “Annals” that “Christ, the founder of the Christian movement,” was executed by Pontius Pilate in Judea.
Later rabbinical literature also contains a few scattered references to “Yeshu,” or “Yeshua"(Jesus)--though these texts were written centuries after the time of Jesus.
An important point to notice is that while Tacitus, the pagan satirist Lucian (2nd Century), and later rabbis are for the most part negative in their references to Jesus, none denies his existence.
Yet the fact is that various types of Christian documents, each presenting a somewhat different view of Jesus, were produced within 40 years of the supposed date of his death. This does seem to argue for the existence of the person being interpreted in such different ways so early on.
In the last century a radical Dutch school tried to question the early dating of Paul’s Epistles--but no serious scholar today would deny that Paul’s authentic letters come from the ‘50s of the 1st Century.
Interestingly, Paul, writing about 25 years after Jesus’ death, mentions James, “the brother of the Lord,” as well as other brothers of Jesus with whom Paul was not on the best of terms.
James, in particular, seems to have provoked a good deal of infighting among the early Christians, and to have owed his prominence, at least in part, to his family relationship to Jesus. The existence of prominent relatives of Jesus argues well for the existence of Jesus himself.
There is archeological confirmation of the existence of Pontius Pilate, discovered in 1961. It consisted of a fragmentary inscription on a piece of stone found on the Israeli coast.
The inscription reported that Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, dedicated a building to the Emperor Tiberius. When one considers that Pilate was the most powerful Roman figure in Palestine during the adult life of Jesus, it is amazing that we have no other archeological evidence of him.
The text as it stands is so positive that scholars suggest that it may have been tampered with by a later Christian scribe. Yet many experts, including Jewish historians such as Shlomo Pines and Louis Feldman, judge that a simpler reference to Jesus by Josephus does lie behind the present text.
In the early 2nd Century, the pagan historian Tacitus mentions in his “Annals” that “Christ, the founder of the Christian movement,” was executed by Pontius Pilate in Judea.
Later rabbinical literature also contains a few scattered references to “Yeshu,” or “Yeshua"(Jesus)--though these texts were written centuries after the time of Jesus.
An important point to notice is that while Tacitus, the pagan satirist Lucian (2nd Century), and later rabbis are for the most part negative in their references to Jesus, none denies his existence.
Yet the fact is that various types of Christian documents, each presenting a somewhat different view of Jesus, were produced within 40 years of the supposed date of his death. This does seem to argue for the existence of the person being interpreted in such different ways so early on.
In the last century a radical Dutch school tried to question the early dating of Paul’s Epistles--but no serious scholar today would deny that Paul’s authentic letters come from the ‘50s of the 1st Century.
Interestingly, Paul, writing about 25 years after Jesus’ death, mentions James, “the brother of the Lord,” as well as other brothers of Jesus with whom Paul was not on the best of terms.
James, in particular, seems to have provoked a good deal of infighting among the early Christians, and to have owed his prominence, at least in part, to his family relationship to Jesus. The existence of prominent relatives of Jesus argues well for the existence of Jesus himself.
There is archeological confirmation of the existence of Pontius Pilate, discovered in 1961. It consisted of a fragmentary inscription on a piece of stone found on the Israeli coast.
The inscription reported that Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, dedicated a building to the Emperor Tiberius. When one considers that Pilate was the most powerful Roman figure in Palestine during the adult life of Jesus, it is amazing that we have no other archeological evidence of him.
Anonymous
11/11/2022 16:41
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?
Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?
I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.
Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.
Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.
Who is requiring hard evidence?
I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.
"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks
Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.
I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.
If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?
Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.
And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.
I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.
You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.
Again: what are your qualifications to say the evidence that every scholar and academic and professor in the western world is wrong? Except for one or two? Are you the third?
Anonymous
11/11/2022 16:25
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.
No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.
A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.
share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees
Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?
So that’s a no?
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Right. Almost no records from that era. Not surprising. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist. But it also means that we don't have primary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archaeological artifacts.
Glad you learned there is no such thing as “hard” and “soft” evidence when academics and scholars research, and that term “circumstantial” evidence is a legal term. You learned alot!
Anonymous
11/11/2022 16:18
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.
Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.
Wrong thread.
Nope!
See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.
Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.
Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.
Anonymous
11/11/2022 16:16
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.
No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.
A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.
share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees
Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?
So that’s a no?
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Right. Almost no records from that era. Not surprising. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist. But it also means that we don't have primary sources. No independent, eyewitness accounts. No archaeological artifacts.
Anonymous
11/11/2022 16:14
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.
No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.
A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.
share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees
Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?
Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”
There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail.”
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Exactly. As I’ve said before, we have limited evidence for most of ancient history.
No primary sources.
No independent, eyewitnesses.
No archeological artifacts.
What makes you think we need those things if the scholars and academics do not need those things?
What are your qualifications to believe the current evidence is lacking and the scholars and academics are all wrong?
+1. Consensus among the vast majority of scholars (Ehrman says all but 1-2 out of thousands) is that Jesus certainly existed. They base this on, among others they things, linguistic evidence, external existence, and the fact that Paul knew Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciples Peter and John.
What are your scholarly credentials for disagreeing? Have you analyzed the linguistic evidence from the Greek and Aramaic and come to a different conclusion? Can you prove that Paul did not meet Peter, James or John, despite multiple sources attesting that a meeting did happen about 15 years into Paul’s mission?
Not sure 1000s would actually say "absolutely certain". Certainly, they "accept" it or "don't see evidence to the contrary". But what (social) scientist says they're absolutely certain about anything. About ancient history, no less.
It's my opinion. You don't have to agree. Maybe you have a different threshold for "certainty". For me, the lack of primary sources, eyewitness accounts, and archaeological artifacts is an issue.
Sure, the interpretations of secondary sources (which have been posted repeatedly) lead us to believe that he most likely lived.
Anonymous
11/11/2022 15:47
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.
Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.
Wrong thread.
Nope!
See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.
Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.
Anonymous
11/11/2022 15:11
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.
Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.
Wrong thread.
Anonymous
11/11/2022 13:29
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.
Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.
Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.
Anonymous
11/11/2022 11:56
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.
No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.
A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.
share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees
Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?
Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”
There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail.”
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Exactly. As I’ve said before, we have limited evidence for most of ancient history.
No primary sources.
No independent, eyewitnesses.
No archeological artifacts.
What makes you think we need those things if the scholars and academics do not need those things?
What are your qualifications to believe the current evidence is lacking and the scholars and academics are all wrong?
+1. Consensus among the vast majority of scholars (Ehrman says all but 1-2 out of thousands) is that Jesus certainly existed. They base this on, among others they things, linguistic evidence, external existence, and the fact that Paul knew Jesus’ brother James and Jesus’ disciples Peter and John.
What are your scholarly credentials for disagreeing? Have you analyzed the linguistic evidence from the Greek and Aramaic and come to a different conclusion? Can you prove that Paul did not meet Peter, James or John, despite multiple sources attesting that a meeting did happen about 15 years into Paul’s mission?
Anonymous
11/11/2022 11:53
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.
No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.
A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.
share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees
Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?
So that’s a no?
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Anonymous
11/11/2022 11:32
Subject: Re:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.
No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.
A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.
share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees
Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?
Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”
There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail.”
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Exactly. As I’ve said before, we have limited evidence for most of ancient history.
No primary sources.
No independent, eyewitnesses.
No archeological artifacts.
What makes you think we need those things if the scholars and academics do not need those things?
What are your qualifications to believe the current evidence is lacking and the scholars and academics are all wrong?
Anonymous
11/11/2022 11:01
Subject: If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
*those thing
*their
*their