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.
All true. That's why they do things like seeing how well what's reported fits in with outside reports, determining what language the document probably was in originally (they make more sense in Aramaic than in Greek), etc. to get at whatever is probably true.
Now you are relying on apologists. All historians I know of accept they were written in Greek.
As to fitting outside reports, you would be surprised how well the Jesus stories fit 50 AD or later.
To be honest with you, I don't know what has convinced them. If we look at historical Jesus on Wiki we find...
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.
Quickly followed by...
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus,
So just what is is it that leads people to believe that a personage for which there is not a scrap of physical or archaeological evidence was a real person. All they have are biased documents from biased sources such as the Gospels, of which they go on to say that the authenticity and reliability of these Gospels has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.
So given all that, why do they believe that Jesus existed when there is no physical or archaeological evidence for him and the only documentary sources available to them are, by their own admission, unreliable!
Beats me other that they don't want to be controversial.
I think that what scholars are agreeing with is that a person upon which the Jesus, man/god legend of the gospels was based existed and his name was Jesus, but because there were literally hundreds of apocalyptic prophets and shamans named Jesus wandering the hills of Palestine preaching the end of the world there is no archeological evidence for him. How could there be????
I think that what scholars are agreeing with is that a person upon which the Jesus, man/god legend of the gospels was based existed and his name was Jesus, but because there were literally hundreds of apocalyptic prophets and shamans named Jesus wandering the hills of Palestine preaching the end of the world there is no archeological evidence for him. How could there be????
I think that what scholars are agreeing with is that a person upon which the Jesus, man/god legend of the gospels was based existed and his name was Jesus, but because there were literally hundreds of apocalyptic prophets and shamans named Jesus wandering the hills of Palestine preaching the end of the world there is no archeological evidence for him. How could there be????
Okay, and that's a good point. But I didn't see many "literally hundreds of apocalyptic prophets and shamans named Jesus wandering the hills of Palestine" in that list. That's the point I was making.
Okay, and that's a good point. But I didn't see many "literally hundreds of apocalyptic prophets and shamans named Jesus wandering the hills of Palestine" in that list. That's the point I was making.
I don't think he was being literal.
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.
