Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.
Ok. They agree that he *mostly likely* existed. We don’t have definitive evidence that he existed.
And, as the PP already mentioned (and should be common knowledge?), you can’t prove a negative.
2 fringe nutter Jesus deniers
Nobody denied he existed so…
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.
Ok. They agree that he *mostly likely* existed. We don’t have definitive evidence that he existed.
And, as the PP already mentioned (and should be common knowledge?), you can’t prove a negative.
2 fringe nutter Jesus deniers
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.
Ok. They agree that he *mostly likely* existed. We don’t have definitive evidence that he existed.
And, as the PP already mentioned (and should be common knowledge?), you can’t prove a negative.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.
I'm sure that's true. But until you lay out their evidence, I'm telling you it's all circumstantial. And I'm saying this as someone who is more than willing to believe he did exist. But not because of any direct evidence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
you can't prove a negative. It's unfair to ask for proof that he didn't exist. Like the pp said, there's no actual evidence he did, it's all circumstantial.
And remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rebutted without evidence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Source?
Anonymous wrote:*Most likely* he lived, but we don’t have definitive evidence that he did.
Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.
Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.
There is not much evidence to prove that some Roman emperors were real person's either
Not to mention that Moses ever lived or that Solomon lived
Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.