Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

[psychoslice]

Does the NT state some things that are factually correct?

Is the NT devoid of any historicity what so ever?

I can understand why you have problems with the educated.

Ha, good try lol.

 

[psychoslice]

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted

only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate

The thing is, if there was a man called Jesus, he is certainly not the same Jesus in the NT, he may have been just another prophet of hundreds that would have been around that time.

 

[outhouse]

The thing is, if there was a man called Jesus,

There was never a man called by the name Jesus in all of Israel. Jesus is Latin

Yeshua or Yehoshua was Hebrew

And in Aramaic there was Isho, which was a very common name. There was a man in Israel named Isho however.

he is certainly not the same Jesus in the NT,

No credible scholar claims he is.

According to scholars the biblical Jesus is a theological piece rhetorically told using mythology and fiction.

Of course you could actually read up on what your debating before posting.


Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".

 

[psychoslice]

There was never a man called by the name Jesus in all of Israel. Jesus is Latin

Yeshua or Yehoshua was Hebrew

And in Aramaic there was Isho, which was a very common name. There was a man in Israel named Isho however.



No credible scholar claims he is.

According to scholars the biblical Jesus is a theological piece rhetorically told using mythology and fiction.

Of course you could actually read up on what your debating before posting.


Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".

There are so called scholars who believe there was a man called Jesus who was the man in the NT.
And I know that the man who wasn't called Jesus was the man they built their myth on.

 

[outhouse]

There are so called scholars who believe there was a man called Jesus who was the man in the NT

They are not credible scholars. They are apologist. You might need to learn the difference.

 

[psychoslice]

They are not credible scholars. They are apologist. You might need to learn the difference.

The thing is your wrong, you have a habit of thinking everyone else is wrong and you are always right, what you call credible scholars are only a bunch of people that you agree with, but you cannot for some reason see outside of this dogma.

 

[outhouse]

The thing is your wrong, you have a habit of thinking everyone else is wrong and you are always right, what you call credible scholars are only a bunch of people that you agree with, but you cannot for some reason see outside of this dogma.

Supply sources.

You dont really have the knowledge to be trusted.

 

[Quagmire]

The thing is your wrong, you have a habit of thinking everyone else is wrong and you are always right, what you call credible scholars are only a bunch of people that you agree with, but you cannot for some reason see outside of this dogma.

None of that is true.

 

[Bunyip]

None of that is true.

I thought it an accurate point.

 

[psychoslice]

None of that is true.

Why is that ?.

 

[psychoslice]

I thought it an accurate point.

I did to.

 

[Quagmire]

Why is that ?.

Why is it not true?

How about because all of the accusations you made there are false?

 

[psychoslice]

But just saying that

Why is it not true?

How about because all of the accusations you made there are false?

doesn't mean its false, biblical scholars all don't agree with each other, because a JW would have a different approach, as also a Seventh Day Adventist, which have their own university.

 

[Quagmire]

But just saying that

doesn't mean its false, biblical scholars all don't agree with each other, because a JW would have a different approach, as also a Seventh Day Adventist, which have their own university.

Do you understand what the word "scholar" means?

Get back to me on that and then we'll move on to "credible".

 

[psychoslice]

Do you understand what the word "scholar" means?

Get back to me on that and then we'll move on to "credible".

Of course I do, its a learnt person of whatever knowledge, but that doesn't mean the scholar is always completely right, and that is what I am saying.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course I do, its a learnt person of whatever knowledge,

I'll ask the panel if we can accept "learnt person of whatever knowledge".

They said, "Sure, why not".

OK, now on to "credible".

but that doesn't mean the scholar is always completely right,

No, no they're not. Anybody can call themselves "Scholar", and when they have the backing of an influential group or organization --- a religious denomination for instance --- "Scholar" can actually sound like it means what it implies.

Which is why the "credible" part is so important.

and that is what I am saying.

In that case, you used way too many unnecessary words.

 

[psychoslice]

Do you understand what the word "scholar" means?

Get back to me on that and then we'll move on to "credible".

Of course I do, its a learnt person of whatever knowledge, but that doesn't mean the scholar is always completely right, and that is what I am saying.

I'll ask the panel if we can accept "learnt person of whatever knowledge".

They said, "Sure, why not".

OK, now on to "credible".



No, no they're not. Anybody can call themselves "Scholar", and when they have the backing of an influential group or organization --- a religious denomination for instance --- "Scholar" can actually sound like it means what it implies.

Which is why the "credible" part is so important.



In that case, you used way too many unnecessary words.

Your cruel to lol, maybe, I'm not the best at trying to explain myself as you are.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course I do, its a learnt person of whatever knowledge, but that doesn't mean the scholar is always completely right, and that is what I am saying.

Your cruel to lol, maybe, I'm not the best at trying to explain myself as you are.

Anyway it's Friday night here and I need to take off before the world closes.

Have a good day/night.

 

[psychoslice]

Anyway it's Friday night here and I need to take off before the world closes.

Have a good day/night.

Yes you to, over and out.

 

[JoStories]

Please keep your tone down because i am not wearing glasses but binoculars.
Now what kind of evidence are you looking for?

In no way was I trying to be rude here. I just answered your question succinctly. The evidence I would like is outside the realm of biased sources. I hope that makes sense.