kcdad

Exactly...
Can you identify who the persons are?
Popeye=
James Bond=
Scarlet O'Hara=


....and so therefor what? Jesus is based on a real person. Thank you.

The search for the historical Jesus is the attempt to discover what made this person worth writing about. It is the search for what his teachings were, what made him remarkable.
If Popeye, James Bond or Scarlet O'Hara were important enough, you would find people seeking out the inspiration for those stories.

spamandham

Probably most of the population has only moderate religious biases. Fanatical types who spend years of their lives getting theology degrees are certainly not representative of the norm.

spamandham

Prove it.

kcdad

2 or 3 years for a theology degree... big deal. Are medical students fanatical? Lawyers? Architects? Teachers?

What do you think the difference between a degree in Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy and Religion is? They all attempt to answer the exact same question... "What does it mean to be human?" One looks at how we interact in groups, one looks at the neurology of our brain and its function, one looks at how we form cognitive presets and define meaning, and the last looks at our mythologies, rituals and language.

Stop hating...

kcdad

Brilliant come back.

I don't have to prove anything.

You are neither judge nor jury, and my life is not dependent upon what anyone else beliefs or thinks. If you want to believe it is all fiction, fine. What do I care? If you can live with the inconsistency of that position, it probably won't make a bit of difference in your life or mine. However, unless you are willing to admit that every person in history that you don't have DNA of is possibly fictional, including George Washington, Galileo, Jean D'arc, Mohammad, Octavian, and The Maccabee Brothers... well, there is no law that says human beings are rational or consistent. (And even if you have DNA, it could actually belong to someone else entirely... surely you realize that) I mean, really... are you even sure there is such a person as Barak Obama? He might be an actor playing the role.

spamandham

Yes, I would call someone who is willing to waste 2-3 years of their lives studying something as useless as theology a fanatic. The other degrees you mentioned are legitimate fields of study. A parapsychology degree would be the proper parallel.

Calling bullshit bullshit is not hate.

spamandham

Ok. Then don't. I certainly have no problem writing off silly unsupported claims.

I allow for the possibility of all the above. DNA wouldn't help. Everyone has DNA afterall, so how could we prove that a semen stain on some ancient cloth was actually that of Clintavius?

If the best explanation for the available evidence was that George Washington was not historical, I would accept that.

Would you?

kcdad

Like ... Darwin? George Mead? Gustavo Gutierrez, Paul Tillich, Thomas Aquinas...

Calling what you don't understand bullshit IS bullshit.

kcdad

you want proof... there is nothing that would rise to that level for you... "it is bullshit" to you. So... go on your merry way believing everything people report today and nothing the "same people" wrote 2 thousand years ago...
So if physical evidence isn't what you are looking for, and consensus evidence isn't what you are looking for... what are you looking for? What would satisfy your your doubt?
Wait a few thousand years.
Probably not. Too much has been written, too many contemporaries have written about him. Too much of history, too many brilliant men have investigated and found the doubt untenable.

spamandham

Aquinas certainly was a fanatic. I'll take your word for it that the others you list here held theology degrees. Times have changed in the past 100 years. The PhD has replaced the ThD in legitimate fields of study, and most universities no longer even offer ThD programs as a result.

We're discussing scholars who are alive today, or at least I am.

How can you know what I do or don't understand in regards to theology/theology programs?

I don't know if you're intentionally mischaracterizing what I've posted or you just lack good reading comprehension. The "bullshit" exclaimer was in regard to the field of theology, not in regard to your claim that Jesus was historical. In regard to that, you asserted Jesus was historical, I asked you to prove it, you said effectively "neener neener I don't have to", to which I replied that I'll happily write off silly unsupported claims.

Do you disagree that it's an unproductive waste of time (aka silly) to just drive-by post unsupported assertions?

I think you are confusing a conclusion with "doubt". In regards to the past, there is always doubt. The same is often true even in regard to the present. That doesn't prevent me from drawing tentative conclusions though.

Right. The best conclusion from the evidence, is that George Washington was a real historical person - the first President of the US. But if that were not the case I would go wherever the evidence led.

You just admitted you would not. Is that the same level of objectivity you bring to the Jesus table?