Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 09-28-2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Okay, all you MJers, answer me this ...

You say that there are no reliable historical accounts of a historical Jesus.

How do you know this? Have you read every document from 1st century Palestine in the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew?

No. I have read all the documents that historicists claim as evidence, but only in English translations.

Steven Carr · 09-28-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Okay, all you MJers, answer me this ...

You say that there are no reliable historical accounts of a historical Jesus.

How do you know this? Have you read every document from 1st century Palestine in the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew?

No. I have read all the documents that historicists claim as evidence, but only in English translations.

How many of the New Testament works actually come from 1st century Palestine?

Can we really make a serious historical analysis of the case for a second gunman who shot JFK unless we read what the proponents of the second gunman in Dallas theory wrote while they were in France, Belgium or Bolivia?

gdeering · 09-28-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Okay, all you MJers, answer me this ...

Joan carring on in your spirit I have to ask you - Were you there? -
Place smily face here (I hate emoticons).

Gregg

aa5874 · 09-28-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Okay, all you MJers, answer me this ...

You say that there are no reliable historical accounts of a historical Jesus.

How do you know this? Have you read every document from 1st century Palestine in the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew? Or do you know because you've been told there are no accounts? Told by ... scholars. The same scholars who you so casually dismiss when they say they believe in an HJ.

In other words, you only trust scholars when you feel like it.

Can you ask HJers how do they know that the accounts we have now are reliable?

In other words why must we trust scholars?

Have you read every single document or heard every oral conversation, in every language, about Achilles or Mermaids?

J-D · 09-28-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Okay, all you MJers, answer me this ...

You say that there are no reliable historical accounts of a historical Jesus.

How do you know this? Have you read every document from 1st century Palestine in the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew? Or do you know because you've been told there are no accounts? Told by ... scholars. The same scholars who you so casually dismiss when they say they believe in an HJ.

In other words, you only trust scholars when you feel like it.

Can you ask HJers how do they know that the accounts we have now are reliable?

In other words why must we trust scholars?

You say 'in other words' as if those two statements are equivalent. It seems to me that they're not. If we trust scholars, then the accounts we have now are not completely reliable.

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

"There are aspects of the crucifixion narratives that stand up to historical scrutiny, as embodying historical fact rather than Christian theology. As one salient example: all of our accounts agree that Jesus was crucified on the order of the Roman governore Pontius Pilate."

Bart D. Ehrman

Quote:

Last time we saw that the New Testament documents are the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The so-called apocryphal gospels are forgeries which came much later and are for the most part elaborations of the four New Testament gospels.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t sources outside the Bible which refer to Jesus. There are. He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion.

William Lane Craig

The Evidence For Jesus
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html

Toto · 09-28-2009, 06:13 PM

Tim: Please stop posting out-of-context quotes and discuss the issues. Do you think that the scholars have reached a final conclusion about the existence of Jesus based on the evidence? Are you familiar with the Jesus Project? What is your point?

aa5874 · 09-28-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Quote:

"There are aspects of the crucifixion narratives that stand up to historical scrutiny, as embodying historical fact rather than Christian theology. As one salient example: all of our accounts agree that Jesus was crucified on the order of the Roman governore Pontius Pilate."

Bart D. Ehrman

The NT and Church writers' accounts agree that Jesus was resurrected.

See Matthew 28.6, Mark 16.6, Luke 24.6, John 20.17, Romans 1.4, and the Church writers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen and Eusebius.

The very same canonised books that claim Jesus was crucified also claimed he was resurrected as historical facts.

The Jesus you look for , in the NT, is not there, HE HAS RISEN [VANISHED].

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 06:19 PM

My point is that even Bart Ehrman, a textual critic, agrees with the scholarly consensus that supports the existence of a historical Jesus.

Toto · 09-28-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

My point is that even Bart Ehrman, a textual critic, agrees with the scholarly consensus that supports the existence of a historical Jesus.

Of course he does. But you won't find anything that he has written that actually evaluates the evidence for a historical Jesus and shows why it is more probable than not that a historical Jesus existed.

Like most other writers on the subject, he accepts the idea that there was a historical Jesus and goes from there. That's not a totally unreasonable appraoch, but it is not a defense of the historical Jesus in the face of critical examination of the evidence.

What is your larger point? Why is this an issue for you?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2009, 06:13 PM	#77
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Tim: Please stop posting out-of-context quotes and discuss the issues. Do you think that the scholars have reached a final conclusion about the existence of Jesus based on the evidence? Are you familiar with the Jesus Project? What is your point?

09-28-2009, 06:19 PM	#79
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	My point is that even Bart Ehrman, a textual critic, agrees with the scholarly consensus that supports the existence of a historical Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.