Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a blatant lie and I am astonished that Christians are able to get away with this lie repeatedly
It's not just the Christians who acknowledge that Jesus is better evidenced than most figures of his time. Bart Ehrman has had to point this out repeatedly, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am not offended at your posts, Thrill. I am concerned that you have thrown out the baby with the bath water. Your denials and rejections go farther than you can possibly support intellectually. You are operating with certainty in an area where no such certainty is possible. We do not disagree that the fundies have corrupted and misunderstood the Christ narrative and the result is evil and lack of love. They do not understand syncretism and the spiritual template that underlies the various Savior or Avatar narratives. But the existence of that template as the way humanity is to evolve their spiritual understanding of God is the important point, not your focus on historicity and tearing down every semblance of the narrative as fiction which it is not. Fiction is a deliberate creation and use of imagination. That is NOT what is going on here.
Religious bigotry. There is no justification for separating those ancient writings from other ancient writing of the same era. The precise distinctions we make today among historical writings simply did not exist back then. Writing was generally tedious, rare, and used for important records, period. The silly accusations of fiction simply do not apply.
This assertion of yours has been refuted how many times now?
So we're throwing away the gospels and Paul's writings, ignoring that these amount to more documentation on Jesus than we have on most figures of ancient times... why?
Because the gospels are fiction (think War and Peace), and Paul nowhere clearly talks about a historical Jesus. Only one seen in visions or revealed in scripture.
So we're throwing away the gospels and Paul's writings, ignoring that these amount to more documentation on Jesus than we have on most figures of ancient times... why?
Not recognized as authentic history? By whom, the mythicists who aren't even scholars in the field of NT history in the first place?
No, by actual historians. And I have given you several historians who ARE mythicists. WLC also has this problem of yours, forgetting things that refute his position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I'm still wondering who the scholars are that say Jesus did not exist.
Carrier is the obvious one, then we have Arthur Droge, Kurt Noll, Thomas Brodie, Robert Price, Thomas Thompson, Hector Avalos. Several others said they have reason to doubt.
This only goes to support my point, which is that none of this goes one step toward implying that Jesus never existed.
It supports the idea though, that is the problem for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
As I'm sure you know, Ehrman is a very adamant critic of that view. Why? Because Jesus is one of the best attested historical figures of that time period.
This is the tenured Ehrman married to a Christian? The same Ehrman who accepts Paul says Jesus was an angel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Despite his criticisms of religion, he's equally intolerant of mythicists who deny history when it suits them.
Ironically by ignoring ignoring the historical texts used to support mythicism. Such as Paul's letters and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Just that anti-theists will do anything to make it look like they have a case against theism, right down to denying the existence of historical figures.
A 'historical' figure who according to the NT was a divine being who never walked on the earth.
Eh, it is not our fault the earliest Christians wrote texts that support mythicism.
Here's your problem with this, Trans: how do you know the epistles were written in the 1st century? We haven't a single scrap of manuscript from the epistles that date to the 1st century when they were purportedly written. We haven't a single mention of Paul in the 1st Century. Everything we have to support the existence of the New Testament originates from the 2nd Century at the earliest and possibly later. There is ample evidence to believe it was Marcion who wrote the epistles.
In plain English, Marcion WAS Paul!
Here I have to disagree. The 'genuine' letters appear to have been written by one person, but Marcion also used letters that contradict the 'genuine' letters on several details. So Marcion would have had to write contradictory letters.
The 'genuine' letters also share ideas found in the pre-70 AD epistle to the Hebrews. I am reasonably confident someone wrote the 'genuine' letters before 70 AD.
5. There isn't a single trial record of Paul in Rome, something inconceivable since the Romans kept such meticulous records of who they tried and executed.
Clement of Rome is possibly the earliest mention of Paul, and says he made it to Spain (where he was killed). So this is another argument for Paul having lived in the first century AD.
The idea that Paul died in Rome comes from Dionysus of Corinth misreading Clement's letter, and the story later evolving.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your denials and rejections go farther than you can possibly support intellectually. You are operating with certainty in an area where no such certainty is possible. We do not disagree that the fundies have corrupted and misunderstood the Christ narrative and the result is evil and lack of love. They do not understand syncretism and the spiritual template that underlies the various Savior or Avatar narratives. But the existence of that template as the way humanity is to evolve their spiritual understanding of God is the important point, not your focus on historicity and tearing down every semblance of the narrative as fiction which it is not. Fiction is a deliberate creation and use of imagination. That is NOT what is going on here.
The same Ehrman who accepts Paul says Jesus was an angel? 
