|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
No thanks.
Like Crash I am waiting to hear that elusive evidnece for the existence of a historical Jesus. This documentary spells out reasons to doubt the hbistorical Jesus. You refuse to even consider the idea that a historical jesus never existed, so no sense talking to you about it. Oh yeah you believe the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?In other words nothing like Jesus at all. Is that correct? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
here really isn't anything in that video to add to the discussion of an historical Jesus. That's funny. The whole documentary shows reasons why Jesus is not a historical figure. Are you sure you watched the right documentary
No; I don't. So what of these things fo you think accurately reflect the historical Jesus. Named Jesus?Did miracles? Was king of the Jews? Was crucified? Rose from dead? So far the only evidence you ahve presented is that you feel that a historical Jesus is a better expanation for Christianity. No evidence none. Instead you demand evidence that there was not a historical jesus. So is your Jesus as historical a figure as Robin Hood and William Tell? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I usually respect your posts but evidently you have jumped in on a conversation you are not following closely.
You make strong points, but Jon is trying to have things both ways. Also, none of what you say is evidence for a historical jesus. Lets look at the conversation
Jon writes: Theodoric writes: Oh yeah you believe the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead? No; I don't. And I've said so countless times in this thread. Apparently my plain English hasn't been sufficient to get this point across, since you and Crash continue to present this caricature as though it were my actual position. Since 'the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?", isn't Jon's position then his position must entail at least one of those criteria. If his position does not entail any of those criteria then it is at least part of his position. Again all Crash and I want is some evidence for a historical Jesus. That a historical Jesus is a very good explanation for the Jesus movement is not evidence. Evidence for a historical Jesus please. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I can only give you historical evidence. No, there is no historical evidence. Historical evidence for the existence would be contemporary sources, original writings, multiple independent attestations from contemporaries. There are assertions and anecdotes that are included in later histories, but those are not historical evidence. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Secondary evidence, the kind that we have regarding Jesus, is still considered historical evidence.
Wrong. It is not secondary historical evidence.
quote:Source I am quite familiar with historical terms and sources. The evidence is hearsay and anecdotal at best. These are not a secondary source for the existence of Jesus. At best they are a primary source of anecdotal evidence for a historical Jesus. The evidence for Jesus is neither primary or secondary it is anecdotal. These sources that supposedly provide evidence are of very questionable provenance. Even the supporters of the historicity of Jesus admit the provenance of many of their sources sucks. All of the New testament should be thrown out as evidence since the provenance of the source is so questionable. The evidence is not historical it is anecdotal. There is a huge difference. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
A secondary source refers to a primary source. Without a primary source there is no secondary source.
Did you read the definition of a secondary source? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Are you saying that the Gospels are original compositions, not based on information that predates them?
We are talking about their classification as a source for a historical Jesus. They are a primary source for anecdotal evidence. Since we have no evidence that they are presenting history we can not take them as a primary source or secondary source of historical evidence. They certainly are not a secondary source of historical evidence as you claim. Edited by Theodoric, : Last line rewrite Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I guess we could say the same about information on Socrates or Pontius Pilate.
There are multiple independent primary and secondary sources for Pontius Pilate. Scholarship is starting to question the historicity of Socrates.
Jesus would not be the only figure from the past about whom we've nothing but written records.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting my argument. Written documents are what is lacking for Jesus. Try using the word contemporary.
That we have nothing but written accounts of someone from antiquity isn't reason to dogmatically assert that such a person didn't exist; at least, it isn't when it concerns anyone other than Jesus...
Who has argued this? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
But alas, you still present no evidence.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
This is a thread about Jesus not Pontius Pilate. Do your own research.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Wow!! Can you people really not do any research?
quote: It is right in Wikipedia for christ sake. Prior to this find the historicity of Pilate was heavily questioned. But here, unlike for Jesus, we an actual dateable artifact that attests to the historicity of Pilate.
Why don't you get off the high horse and back up your claims, assuming you can (Which I for one, doubt). Do you have a point or are you just trying to derail the topic? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The Bible is not a single document. It is a collection of works by multiple authors, all of which must be evaluated on their own merits.
The Greek and Roman myths are not a single document. They are a collection of works by multiple sources, all of which must be evaluated on their own merits.
A document does not have to be written during the events it describes to be accepted as evidence.
To be accepted as a historical document there must be some sort of connection to an original source.
don't forget that Paul, at least was living in the time when the Gospels are set) Don't forget Mark Twain was living in the time when Tom Sawyer was set.Can you please provide a list of events set in the Gospel that Paul mentions? What is his take on the birth of Jesus? What does he say about the baptism of Jesus? If you are going to use Paul as a verification of the gospels he must talk about the events in the gospels quite extensively. Really all I see is somebody trying to hold forth on a subject he knows even less about than I do ? How can you hope to convince anyone if you can't be bothered to even do basic research ? Instead of being a condescending ass how about actually sticking to the points bob brought up. As of yet you have not refuted anything he said. Still waiting for the evidence. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
My point was it is up to those making claims to back them up. Well the purpose of this thread is for those with claims of a historical jesus to back up those claims. As of yet there has been no evidence presented. I am not sure why you think my point about Pilate is relevant. Now that I have backed that up how about presenting some actual evidence like the Pilate stone to back up the historicity of jesus. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024