My point is that Micheal Grant is no different, no less biased than any of the other biblical scholars that write popular books for the public.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Any of the Authors of the Gospels Know Jesus?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
My point is that Micheal Grant is no different, no less biased than any of the other biblical scholars that write popular books for the public.
Alceste
Vagabond
I did read it, then I read it again. You made a factual claim, then you pointlessly quoted some scripture, then you reiterated your claim.
Do you honestly find this post persuasive? Really? You see theists pulling this crap every day and object to it with every fibre of your being.
I asked you for your EVIDENCE, not your opinion.
Alceste
Vagabond
Can I please see your evidence that Grant is a "biblical scholar", a opposed to a "scholar"?
Because out of all the dozens of history books he's written, only one tackles the historicity of Jesus. So forgive me if I can't accept your opinion that his Christian bias is self evident.
Last edited:
Maybe you can get Ben Stein to make a movie about this.
That scripture is the crucifixion scene. Instead of the author drawing from witnesses he is drawing from his ancient scriptures. I am showing you where he got his story from, it's physical evidence.
Last edited:
I quoted him for you, he's biased. There is no evidence strong enough either way, we can't know if Jesus was historical or not because all we have is religious texts and Grant, like so many others, view those that don't assert that Jesus is historical as not being credible.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
In the case of Davey Crocket there is so much good evidence to justify belief in his existence. Not just belief as you infer - but many reliable and cross referenceable records.
He was a member of the US house of representatives, for which there are of course records. He was also in the Battle of Alamo and the Texas Revolution and is recorded in their annals - as is his rank of Colonel in the Lawrence county militia.
We have birth, death and military service records along with countless newspaper articles, political records and so on.
The point is that the people who beleive he existed do not just rely on belief - there is a truly vast body of solid evidence.
Only because you need him to be.
InChrist
Free4ever
Why do you assume they did not know Greek? In Israel at that time under Roman rule most Jews probably spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and maybe some spoke Latin. I think it was because Greek was commonly spoken throughout the Roman Empire along with other factors that God specifically chose this time to send His Son to the earth and to spread the gospel.
The Language of the Gospel
http://www.levitt.com/essays/language
The Roman Empires Contribution to the Spread of the Gospel and the Growth of the Early Church
http://thetruthwon.com/2011/07/the-roman-empires-contribution-to-the-spread-of-the-gospel-and-the-growth-of-the-early-church/
outhouse
Atheistically
Because they lived in a Aramaic speaking place. Hellenist were their enemies.
If you read the bible you would know this.
What is Galilean Aramaic? | The Aramaic New Testament
“After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, ‘Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.’” - Matthew 26:73
Because of how Galileans spoke differently, early Judean Rabbis thought poorly of them, accusing them of “sloppy speech.” There are several anecdotes in the Talmud Bavli (the “Babylonian Talmud”
where Galileans are mocked due to how they didn’t distinguish between certain consonants and vowels — sounds that were much more distinct and articulate in the prevalent Judean/Babylonian dialect. One such story even forbid Galileans from speaking in the Temple for fear that they might mispronounce something and offend God Himself!However, despite these differences, after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD, there was a large migration of rabbis from Judea into Galilee, and that is when the dialect flourished. Great works such as Talmud Yerushalemi (the “Palestinian Talmud”
and the Rabba series of Jewish Biblical commentary were penned, and large schools were founded. The era of “Classical” Galilean (the “granddaughter dialect” to that which Jesus spoke) began and it continued into the Byzantine period.Learn cultural anthropology so you don't keep making apologetically biased mistakes.
Alceste
Vagabond
You're not showing me any evidence, you're just making some random factual claim, then quoting scripture.
Do you ever find it persuasive when theists do that to you? Ever? Because I thought we shared some pretty firm opinions on whether making random factual claims and quoting scripture was a persuasive rhetorical style.
Alceste
Vagabond
Right, so it's all a big conspiracy, and all those other dozens of books he wrote that have nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity were just a clever ploy to enhance his credibility.
Mm-hmm.
Classic! And we all know that if you try to teach Creationism in school you get fired, explaining today's phony 'consensus' on evolution. Thanks.
I'm not quoting scripture, I'm showing you the lines that the author of gMark copied from in order to create his crucifixion scene.
Last edited:
Ok, so you equate the questioning of Jesus' existence with creationism. If that's your view that's fine. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jesus did not exist but I wouldn't be so sure that he did at the same time. You have your view and I have mine, what now? BTW, Brodie wrote a book on the side, he wasn't teaching it.
This is nothing but pathetic and baseless ad hominem. So, for example, the Schnelle source has a 14 page, 2 columns per page, bibliography referencing roughly 700 scholars. You, with zero credentials and zero claim to credibility, simply dismiss them as cowardly and/or cynical opportunists. This isn't an argument; it's worthless hubris.
No. I equate your argument with that occasionally employed in the more empty-headed creationist polemic. Perhaps you should focus more on reading comprehension … maybe even read a book.
Yes, and Ehrman et al will harp on repeatedly that no credible scholar doubts that Jesus was historical.
I'm used to the ad homs. Jesus appears to bring the best out of people.