Perhaps what lacks credibility is your understanding of the evidence.The problem with Jesus is merely lack of credible evidence and nothing more.
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!
Perhaps what lacks credibility is your understanding of the evidence.The problem with Jesus is merely lack of credible evidence and nothing more.
I don't think it is a blatant lie. Because if you really didn't care, you would actually take the time to read what has been posted here, instead of just repeating ideas that really are being voiced. Case in point, we haven't been talking about God manifested in human form. That simply is not what we are talking about. I'm sure most who have really debated in this thread would admit that Jesus is fully human, and not divine.
Perhaps what lacks credibility is your understanding of the evidence.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan
I completely agree.I don't think I set the bar that high
It's a conspiracy theory. That's why most serious scholars dismiss it.
'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case : NPR
Nope. That's not actually what the current consensus is.
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.
Historians focusing on this era (admittedly mainly Christians themselves) generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. Many historians believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories.
What an ancient historian means by the words "probably" or "likely" is not what a scientist means by the word.
If the question were the existence of any arbitrary first-century Judean who was not otherwise special, historians could provide the evidence, with weight, and give a nuanced answer. However, Jesus is the entire beginning and endpoint of Christian theology, and his life being exactly as detailed in the Gospels is a critical point for most believers. The politics against any discovery of fact contradicting this is vast.
:banghead3You can see scholars generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago.
That sounds promising until....So when I said in my earlier post to JS something to the effect of it being easier to go with the flow than it is to stick to your guns this just bears out my point.What an ancient historian means by the words "probably" or "likely" is not what a scientist means by the word.
OK. You might be right. I am not going to argue the case as that is probably subjective too without an anonymoust poll of all scholars.
wiki says about historical Jesus
You can see scholars generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago.
That sounds promising until....
So when I said in my earlier post to JS something to the effect of it being easier to go with the flow than it is to stick to your guns this just bears out my point.
Going with the flow of information you mean? Yes, I can see how going against that flow would take an extraordinary level of obstinacy. :yes:
I'm not sure if there's any virtue in sticking to your guns once it's been shown that you're firing blanks.
I'm baffled. Aren't you Staff on this forum?
Neither point strikes me as particularly remarkable.I'm baffled. Aren't you Staff on this forum?
These newbies are so much sharper than us old folks.Oh goody: we have another new comer who's going to show up and immediately tell everybody, including staff, how they should conduct themselves here.