Did Jesus exist?

[Repox]

Fraud can be unintentional. As to whether certain academics and church academics were frauds in the past, there is no doubt.

Half the job is cleaning up their mess, and when modern scholars use those sources, the material is likewise goofed.

As to fraudulent academics currently, to think there isn't, is naive.

Then, make the case for believers being honest. I didn't say all scholars are honest, I proposed they are scrutinized. If there is no means to verify stories, liars have their way.

Fraud can be unintentional. As to whether certain academics and church academics were frauds in the past, there is no doubt.

Half the job is cleaning up their mess, and when modern scholars use those sources, the material is likewise goofed.

As to fraudulent academics currently, to think there isn't, is naive.

You haven't read my posts, I said historical information and scholarly conclusions must be verified.

 

[Desert Snake]

Aside from that, it is a mistake to group all the church writings, etc, with the type of Christianity, that Constantine first instated. This is why the arguments against Constantine, are different , from arguments against later church speculations, etc.

The main church, roman, outside of "ideas"and arguments, like inherited sin, so forth, is generally the same as other christianity. The problem being, some of those church ideas were instated, or made formal, when they were more of a debateable issue.

The trinity as separate entities, for example, is not even logically played out by the belief, the standard belief, that Jesus is God. When Jesus is God, we assume He is of the same character, as the Triune Godhood; and without polytheism, this has to be assumed, as non separation.

The separation of human ,form Jesus, literally the Jesus that lived in Israel, also is further annulled, from a contextual standpoint, when He is in Spirit form. Via Scriptural inference, we would not assume Jesus, even in human form//in Israel, to be "separate", from the father.

John 10:30

 

[Repox]

I can't make that case, really. That is something you have to determine, for yourself.

I do know that whatever you choose to believe, it is going to be quietly scoffed, by academia, in general.

If you think they are your backers, or something, think again.

I am a scholar, and I am also a believer, the two are not incompatible. There is nothing wrong with doing scholarly research, there are a lot of mechanism for making scholarly work honest. I also know there are a lot of frauds out there, among them are religious fanatics. Regardless, if you propose an idea based on historical events, you should present evidence.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am a scholar, and I am also a believer, the two are no incompatible. There is nothing wrong with doing scholarly research, there are a lot of mechanism for making scholarly work honest. I also know there are a lot of frauds out there, among them are religious fanatics. Regardless, if you propose an idea based on historical events, you should present evidence.

You probably have christian /authors, already, then , who make arguments, in that context. That isn't really my interest, and I never use the term "historical Jesus".

Keep in mind that all Bible inference would be consequentially in 'question', not just the nt

 

[Repox]

You probably have christian /authors, already, then , who make arguments, in that context. That isn't really my interest, and I never use the term "historical Jesus".

Keep in mind that all Bible inference would be consequentially in 'question', not just the nt

If you don't think verification of historical events or facts is more important than a faith based belief system, there is nothing wrong with that assumption, but in the context what we know about history and many frauds committed by apparently well intended people, there will always be doubt unless there is verification. I believe events in the Bible happened, but I doubt the story telling. Those authors wrote mostly for audiences, not necessarily for truth. If there are doubts, good historical research may be of benefit. On top of it all, there must be a theological framework, otherwise, there is lot of drifting around.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you don't think verification of historical events or facts is more important than a faith based belief system, there is nothing wrong with that assumption, but in the context what we know about history and many frauds committed by apparently well intended people, there will always be doubt unless there is verification. I believe events in the Bible happened, but I doubt the story telling. Those authors wrote mostly for audiences, not necessarily for truth. If there are doubts, good historical research may be of benefit.

I like to mix my historical research with general skepticism as to the sources. As far as fraud, there is 'other motivations', that clearly are at play, in some historical christian study. That is sort of off topic from straight Bible text, and in Bible text, we are using other methodology of truth estimation, as people with belief.

We can't solely rely on academic works, because ultimately, they discount any religious credibility to the Bible.

That is why we might use christian authors, or jewish, contextually, as opposed to straight academia

 

[Repox]

If you don't think verification of historical events or facts is more important than a faith based belief system, there is nothing wrong with that assumption, but in the context what we know about history and many frauds committed by apparently well intended people, there will always be doubt unless there is verification. I believe events in the Bible happened, but I doubt the story telling. Those authors wrote mostly for audiences, not necessarily for truth. If there are doubts, good historical research may be of benefit.

I like to mix my historical research with general skepticism as to the sources. As far as fraud, there is 'other motivations', that clearly are at play, in some historical christian study. That is sort of off topic from straight Bible text, and in Bible text, we are using other methodology of truth estimation, as people with belief.

We can't solely rely on academic works, because ultimately, they discount any religious credibility to the Bible.

That is why we might use christian authors, or jewish, contextually, as opposed to straight academia

• I don't disagree, but scholarship standards must be maintained. Otherwise, bias, subjectivity, and misinformation may rule the day. As an example, do we interpret OT verses by Jewish holy books, or by Christian beliefs? After all, the Jews are God's chosen people, so why does Christian ideology influence biblical interpretations? Christians finds Jesus in the OT, Judaism finds a variety of proverbial expressions. Whose truth is God's truth?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God is Author according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Nonsense.