outhouse

Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire


last time i checked, you dont have the credibility to take on modern scholarships.


questioning them is healthy, outright dismissal from a standpoint of igmorance is another [facepalm]

aa5874

Your post is just a big joke. You appear to be ignorant that many so-called Scholars who support an historical Jesus may also worship Jesus and expect a reward from God because they told people Jesus was real.

I have seen a list of over a hundred Scholars and all appear to be BELIEVERS or Christians.

See http://christianscholars.blogspot.com/

There are even Christian Scholars WHO argue that Jesus was a figure of but was actually resurrected.

A resurrected being is a MYTH.

Remarkably, some Christian Scholars support Mythology but are simultaneously arguing that a RESURRECTED Jesus was human.

And again, it is a complete waste of time telling me about QUANTITY when I deal with Evidence, Evidence, EVIDENCE......SOURCES, SOURCES, SOURCES of antiquity.

Billions of people, including Scholars, and even OUTHOUSE, may believe Jesus did exist but ZERO--NIL--NONE can produce a shred of credible evidence from antiquity for their Belief.

Sheshbazzar

Most contemporary scholars attended institutions that employed professors that have long supported and taught that view.

Most contemporary scholars that have pursued a Degree in Historical studies related to religion, have done so at a religious, or a religion supported Institution.

Most contemporary scholars wished to receive their Degrees, and to become respected members of the academic community.

Most contemporary scholars are aware and understand that to succeed in their professional careers, there are certain dues to be paid.

Most contemporary scholars, if in the course of their education, display radical views and opinions that are out of line with those views and positions held by their professors, and with those traditional views long espoused by the institutions they are attending,
Will become invited guests to an academic conference to discuss their future, and whether it would be in the best interests of all concerned, for them to either consider changing their Major, or perhaps to continue their education and pursue their desired Degree elsewhere.

Most Institutes of Higher Education depend on receipt of substantial bequests, donations, gifts, and support from their Alumni, and various wealthy philanthropic contributors. All of whom hold certain influence, and demand certain cultural hegemonic standards and expectations which they expect the recipients of their generosity and support, to in a fair exchange, uphold.

It is therefore not in the least surprising that most contemporary Degreed scholars will be found to be careful in their support of the present overall status-quo vis the existence of a 'historical' J-C, and this subjects sacrosanct standing within the annuals of 'traditional' education.
Loose cannons flunk out. Some find jobs at McD's, most get little further, some commit a slow or a fast suicide.
A very few, learn more, get stronger, overcome every obstacle, and overthrow the idols, institutions, and hegemonies of the ignorant past.

It all comes down to the individual, and what they expect to accomplish with their life.
One can play this game by the rules the power brokers and their institutions have set, and become a respected 'success'.
Or one can follow their conscience in being iconoclasts 'overthrowing the tables of the money changers', -with a price that will be paid-, but that can forever change the world.

It is up to the individual which it is, in their eyes that seems to be the better course, for themselves, and for all of humanity.





.

Adam

Finally found something we agree on, Shesh!

Doug Shaver

Just because there is no argument doesn't mean there should be no argument.

In my observation, a great deal of consensus history rests on pretty flimsy evidence.

Doug Shaver

Considering how many people the Romans crucified in those days, I suppose it's probable that at least one was a teacher.

To be the historical Jesus, though, his disciples would have to have been responsible for creating the religion that evolved into Christianity as we know it. What is your overwhelming evidence for that?

Doug Shaver

Yes, that is the consensus. No one disputes that such a consensus exists. What a few of us dispute is the assumption that the consensus is justified by the evidence.

outhouse

It does.


as I stated, its healthy to question it, its how we understand the evidence we are left with

outhouse

Nope false.

jesus didnt ever, nor tried. To start a new religion.


he was trying to reform judaism, within judaism. His only problem with the religion was the roman infection to the religion, he wanted nothing to do with teh hellenization of judaism. Paul started that never jesus

outhouse

OK but my point is.

If your not educated to know what constitute's evidence or not, your opinion isnt valid and has no credibility.

One needs to be educated in many areas before one can simply throw out the baby and bath water.


Im not claiming my view has any more credibility then anyone else for that matter, I tend to lump quite a few different historians views together.

The problem with many modern scholarships and historians, is they are trying to create their own personal historicity with their work, then playing from a even standard.


even with all that said, there is more historicity for a jewish teacher named jesus who was put on a cross then many mortal men. we just dont discount his historicity because he was written about mythically by what amounts to be his enemies