rahrens

Yes and his peers use those methods ands standards to judge. So again, respect is not automatic, but is earned.

aa5874

So, why do you not suppose that Jesus of the NT was meant to be presented similar to Achilles?

Look at Matthew 1.18 And Acts 1.9 I think Jesus, too, was never supposed to be an historical figure.

So how did professional historians ,as you call them, get their historical evidence? Where did the professional historians get their historical evidence?

It could not be that they got their historical evidence from the NT, church writings or non-canonised because it is claimed a multiplicity of times, hundreds of times, that Jesus truly was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, truly was born without sexual union, truly resurrected and truly ascended to heaven.

And they could NOT have gotten their historical evidence from non-apologetic sources, since there are only forgeries in Josephus.

Please, I beg of you, tell me from where the professional historians got their historical information?


But, you sound like someone who has no evidence for your position, so you tell me about other people.

I do not want to hear anything about other people, I want to hear your explanation for Matthew 1.18 and Acts 1.9. Where is the history for your Jesus?

Pllease don't tell me you got it from other people's imagination.

You are confused, I never proposed to build a nuclear plant for you.

But, you have proposed to build a case for the history of Jesus using mythology.

Your history of Jesus is bulit on Matthew1.18 and Acts 1.9.

delusional

This might help:

http://evangelicalatheist.com/2008/0...city-of-jesus/

Read all of it (including all the comments); not just the bits you agree with.

aa5874

Now, this is embarrassing. I asked you for historical evidence and all you can come up with are forged passages in Josephus.

And even if you think they are not forged, the "TF" is then one of the multiple-attested resurrection of Jesus.

Every single author of the Gospels including gJohn wrote that Jesus did indeed resurrect. Jesus is a multiple-attested myth.

Most of the the writers of the NT, the church writers, and non-cononised writings multiple-attested that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, multiple-attested that he transfigured, multiple attested that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Jesus is a multiple-attested myth.

And it have been already discussed, the criterion of embarrassment is useless, just a waste of time.

The criterion is just illogical.

If the embarrassing parts are likely to be true, then those parts that are not embarrassing are likely to be false.

So, Jesus did not exist or likely not to have existed since his existence was not embarrassing.

Jesus is a multiple-attested myth.

Toto

You destroy your credibility here. Geza Vermes was born Jewish, converted as a child to Catholicism, was a priest, and then reasserted his Jewish identity, but is not anti-Christian. Paula Fredriksen [note the spelling] is Jewish and also not, as far as I can see, especially anti-Christian.

But neither one is trained as a historian. Both are religion scholars who study texts.

I assume the last on your list is Edwin Yamauchi, who is an evangelical Christian featured in Lee Strobel's Case for Christ. Is Lee Strobel your real authority? Please read more about his shoddy techniques - search the archives here.

You seem to be describing a historian who bases his or her argument on their personal qualifications - an argument from authority. This is not how things work. We are not taking a survey of opinions on whether Jesus was a historical figure, we are looking for the underlying facts and arguments.

delusional

Exactly what has the website I posted got to do with forged passages in Josephus? Far from reading all of it, it would seem that you never got passed a link in the second paragraph.

delusional

Paula Fredrickson (note the spelling) has:

A graduate of Wellesley College (1973), Oxford University (1974), and Princeton University (1979), she has published widely in the social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity from the late Second Temple period to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. (from Boston University website)


I haven't read Lee Strobel in my life.


I am describing an attitude to somebody who are specialists in their field, and are giving their reasons for thinking as they do.

Toto

What does that blog post have to do with anything? It rehashes the discredited methodoly of the criteria of embarassment, based on an audio lecture by a member of the Jesus Seminar. The last comment on that blog is especially uninformed.

You seem to think that we should be impressed that someone claims some sort of expertise and says that Jesus existed - without demanding to know what evidence they used. It doesn't wash.

aa5874

Where else in the link is there any reference to Jesus of the NT from non-apologetic sources?

I asked for historical information about Jesus, you give me forgeries and theories.

I told you I am looking for historical evidence not theories. There are a multiplicity of theories out there but no historical evidence.

Toto

Her name is sometimes misspelled - as it is on Metacrock's site. Here is the BU website:

http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios/fredriksen.html And you claim was that she was no friend to Christianity. Would you like to retract that?

But you cite a retired American evangelical as a historical expert?

[/QUOTE]

Then what did you mean by "it still requires you to have some respect for the fact that they are professionally qualified if you are going to attach more weight to their opinions than to those of the man nextdoor. "

:huh: