FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page The overwhelming case for a historical Jesus (was A surpising find!)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 45 of 62 « First 354344 45 464755 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-25-2011, 01:50 AM   #441
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
There are many better explanations. There is no real evidence of Christianity in the first century. The idea that Christianity arose from marginal Jewish communities after the Jewish War, and invented its history, seems most probable, with the fewest anomalies to explain.
Well, tell us more! I'd be interested in hearing your evidence for this. Don't be shy!
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 02:18 AM   #442
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
You must see the problem with this question. That you actually wrote it is pretty funny.
No, I don't. What is the problem with this question?
What are the sources for the answer?

Quote:
Nope, nothing comes to mind. What do you wish to tell me on this question?
Begging the question...

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

How about you explain to me exactly why you would classify Mark as an ancient biography, since it is your assumption that has been questioned.
I'm saying that modern scholarship has moved towards regarding the Gospels as a form of "ancient biography". According to Toto, this even induced a sigh of relief amongst NT scholars. Do you agree that modern scholarship has moved towards this position? That's what I'm claiming here. Is modern scholarship right or wrong?
Christians have almost always assumed that the gospels are a biographical, eyewitness testimony to a godman.

Apart from that belief based assumption, what evidence do you think supports the claim that Mark was, in fact, originally written as a biography?

Here is a hint. There is no existing evidence that supports such a conclusion without, of course, begging the question.
dog-on is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 05:50 AM   #443
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,706
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
No, I don't. What is the problem with this question?
What are the sources for the answer?



Begging the question...

Quote:

I'm saying that modern scholarship has moved towards regarding the Gospels as a form of "ancient biography". According to Toto, this even induced a sigh of relief amongst NT scholars. Do you agree that modern scholarship has moved towards this position? That's what I'm claiming here. Is modern scholarship right or wrong?
Christians have almost always assumed that the gospels are a biographical, eyewitness testimony to a godman.

Apart from that belief based assumption, what evidence do you think supports the claim that Mark was, in fact, originally written as a biography?

Here is a hint. There is no existing evidence that supports such a conclusion without, of course, begging the question.
Under such assumptions, Sherlock Holmes will become a historical character in another millinium.
angelo is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 06:24 AM   #444
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

What are the sources for the answer?



Begging the question...



Christians have almost always assumed that the gospels are a biographical, eyewitness testimony to a godman.

Apart from that belief based assumption, what evidence do you think supports the claim that Mark was, in fact, originally written as a biography?

Here is a hint. There is no existing evidence that supports such a conclusion without, of course, begging the question.
Under such assumptions, Sherlock Holmes will become a historical character in another millinium.
Yup. In fact, I bet you could find people, today, that would argue for the historicity of Sherlock Holmes. Just use the standard NT historical criteria and you would be hard pressed to dispute them...
dog-on is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 06:38 AM   #445
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post

Under such assumptions, Sherlock Holmes will become a historical character in another millinium.
Yup. In fact, I bet you could find people, today, that would argue for the historicity of Sherlock Holmes. Just use the standard NT historical criteria and you would be hard pressed to dispute them...
There is really nothing wrong with BELIEF once it is ADMITTED that there is NO historical support for the BELIEF.

People Speculate all the time but will normally admit to it however "BELIEVERS of Jesus " both REFUSE to admit that they are actively speculating and expect other to join them in their FOLLY.

HJers want people to HISTORICIZE IT.

Quote:
IT WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN and of the HOLY SPIRIT.....
aa5874 is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 06:52 AM   #446
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Irrelevant. A consensus among scholars is not evidence for anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Surely a consensus among scholars means something.
Meaning != Evidence. Of course it means something. It just isn't evidence for whatever proposition the consensus affirms.

One thing that the consensus could mean is that the scholars have good evidence on which to base their consensus. But if you go looking for that evidence and don't find it, then you're justified in thinking it means something else. And I've looked. I've done lots of looking.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 06:59 AM   #447
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Which Christians didn't believe that the Gospels were written around a real person?
The authors.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 07:11 AM   #448
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Which Christians didn't believe that the Gospels were written around a real person?
The authors.
:notworthy:
dog-on is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 07:56 AM   #449
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
Default
It would be interesting if Doug and the worshipful Dog-On would produce evidence for the proposition that the Gospel writers did not believe they were writing about a real person.

Steve
Juststeve is offline  
Old 01-25-2011, 08:04 AM   #450
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
There are many better explanations. There is no real evidence of Christianity in the first century. The idea that Christianity arose from marginal Jewish communities after the Jewish War, and invented its history, seems most probable, with the fewest anomalies to explain.
Well, tell us more! I'd be interested in hearing your evidence for this. Don't be shy!
Like I wrote, this conversation is getting reptitious and pointless.

This thread is about the overwhelming evidence for a historical Jesus, and it's approaching 500 replies. So far, the evidence is completely underwhelming.

You don't have any evidence for Jesus. You are trying to do what countless debaters here have done - claim that there is a scholarly consensus for X and substitue that for evidence for X. But it turns out there isn't really a scholarly consensus, or if there is, the evidence supporting that consensus is missing.
Toto is offline  
 
Page 45 of 62 « First 354344 45 464755 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.