Bunyip
pro scapegoat
So then Paul is testifying to a different Jesus, the brother of James as opposed to the high priest?
-
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!
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
- Thread starter Bunyip
- Start date
- Status
So then Paul is testifying to a different Jesus, the brother of James as opposed to the high priest?
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Well, if Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, why the common assumption of a Hebrew name? Could have been Aramaic (Isn't that more likely anyway?) or even Greek.
It was very common then, as it is now, for names to be passed down from generation to generation. It is not unusual for someone to have a name that derived from a language he or she doesn't actually speak. My name comes from Gaelic, a language I don't speak, nor does anybody in my family.
What language does your name derive from?
No need at all. But I happen to think that it was.
What is strange is that you can't think of any reason why an atheist would be base their opinion concerning this topic on religious fanaticism, but you still insist that they are.
outhouse
Atheistically
No need.
Its just a matter of education, and those that appeal to severe ignorance on the topic.
You have no education here, yet somehow imagine yourself as having the only correct conclusion, and feel those who have spent the time to study are actually learn and know what they are talking about as fanatics
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
..... you are fascinated by it all...... you know that you are
You can't keep away.....
I don't recall insisting anything.fantôme profane;3945838 said:No need at all. But I happen to think that it was.
What is strange is that you can't think of any reason why an atheist would be base their opinion concerning this topic on religious fanaticism, but you still insist that they are.
True, I am fascinated by people's beliefs and their certainties...... you are fascinated by it all...... you know that you are
You can't keep away.....
outhouse
Atheistically
Credible answers and conclusions are here.
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted
Two widely accepted historical facts
Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted
Two widely accepted historical facts
Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.
outhouse
Atheistically
Its just a matter of education, and those that appeal to severe ignorance on the topic.
You have no education here, yet somehow imagine yourself as having the only correct conclusion, and feel those who have spent the time to study are actually learn and know what they are talking about as fanatics
Educational terrorism is not being able to address what is known due to ignorance, then labeling those with education, as being part of a herd.
Yes a herd of educated people VS ignorance
My mistake.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
"Theories of his non-existence" ROLFMAO.
Fortunately for the tooth fairy, theories of her non-existence have been similarly difficult to evidence. Same goes for Smurfs, Leprechauns and Justin Beiber's talent.
LOVED the bit about HISTORICAL FACTS buddy - especially given that when it comes to the ancient world, there is no such thing.
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
roger1440
I do stuff
If Josephus' two accounts are true about Jesus, at the very best what is true is that the accounts were believed at the time Josephus wrote them. Josephus was not an eyewitness to what he wrote about concerning Jesus.
I wonder what the theory for the non-existence of an invisible God and the first born Son of God consists of. I suppose we start with what the non-existence of invisible looks like, and go from there.
- Status