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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is neither. Paul and Josephus are more than adequate to support the inference of a historical Jesus pending evidence to the contrary.
And most historians that address the topic do not. You simply see what you want to see.
And now comes petty ad hominem.
And now comes petty ad hominem.
staff edit
You've so regurgitated your invalid analogy between the Jesus movement and the book of Mormon that your own posts demonstrate your dishonesty.
Which explains the vast wealth of anti-Christian sentiments we have thanks mostly to quotations by Christian apologists. Finds like the Nag Hammadi library just showed how wrong your view is.
How do you know what we have?
This kind of scribal work was done so frequently it is impossible to actually study the field and not realize how far off you are. Most of the anti-Christian texts we have are preserved almost in full by both Christian authors and Christian scribes, all because they wanted to address their opponents' claims. However, as your information about cultures 2,000 years ago comes from being raised Christian, it's understandable that you wouldn't know much about any of this.Can you imagine a Christian getting hold of a Jesus-denying document and being tasked with making copies?
...apply double standards. One for historical Jesus studies, and another for anything else. Add a healthy dose of dishonest claims of unbiased opinions rather than almost completely uninformed nonsense, and you have a mythicist. Welcome to the club.
...doesn't stop you from proclaiming what notions were "exciting", skipping over problematic issues like the concept of messiah, or even applying your modern observations as the basis for you beliefs. You were raised Christian, and so Christianity must have a fascinating appeal. A historical godman is an idea that "caught fire" because...well, actually, it didn't. But you watched Christians who found Christianity "exciting", so clearly in "primitive" times it would be too.
Permit me an honest question: Do you not feel that your persistent and exhaustive responses lend credence to his mantra of denial? The historicity of Jesus is not provable: it is simply a (very widely accepted) example of inference to best explanation. There can be no useful discussion of the inference in the absence of an honest and reasonable interlocutor.
Jayhawker Soule said:
Of course.
Perhaps, but frequently my responses to posts are not for the benefit of those who fall into the category of "none so blind as those that will not see". I am farther from perfect than most, and one of my imperfections is letting misinformation go unaddressed knowing that others will see it and might use it as a basis thinking it was something other than pure biased ignorance.
I don't generally deal with history but with the sciences. And as theories in these are not provable, I cetainly don't hold historiography to a higher standard. But that doesn't excuse fundamental arrogant ignorant bias superficially masked by a veneer of objectivity which would fool only those who wish to be and who know little of the subject (and desire to keep it that way).
I agree. And while I do sometimes do this, more often I continue discussions because it is through forums and blogs that those who know virtually nothing of history and refuse to be educated (or to admit they no know too little; this at least is true of us all about most fields) quote-mine websites and forums to spout nonsense because they can't be troubled to study.