Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TF49
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.

I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.

So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.

Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.

I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.

Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.

This guy is an entertainer and book seller.



Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.

On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.

Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.



You find Ehrman’s evidence insufficient.....? Lol...... Ok, you can be the judge, after all it is only you that you have to convince. Perhaps someday you will reconsider when you are confronted with conflict.

Who is this “religious follower who’s obligated to mindlessly believe.....?” Sounds like you. You are obligated to only believe the science.

There is an entire suite of reality, beings and experiences out there that you are seemingly unaware of.

But, by all means trundle on, keeping your eyes shut.

The Bible refers to those in this condition as “blind.”



Why would you presume I've never been confronted with conflict?

I've faced my fair share and see no benefit in confronting conflict through a distorted lens of reality.

As for what I'm "obligated" to believe, as a skeptic, unlike the religious, I'm not "obligated" to believe anything until I find the evidence is sufficient to support a given belief.

When scientist initially make claims about the existence of what we label Dark Matter, it was probably 10 years before I found the evidence sufficient to support the claim it existed. Theologians have had a couple thousand years, and yet, they still can't come up with anything as convincing as the lensing effect of dark matter.

When you have something that good, let me know.


Have you ever read the works of the Roman Emporer Julian ( Flavius Claudius Iulianus Augustus)? http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_0_intro.htm

His goal was to philosophically convince Rome to officially reject Christianity and return officially to paganism. His arguments against the deity of Christ clearly establish Jesus as a man of history. He had access to the Roman census records. Anyone who says there is not evidence to prove that Jesus is a man of history has either not done the research or they refuse to believe the evidence. Unbelief in in the historicity of Jesus Christ is a matter of the heart and not the head. Skeptics are typically not willing to believe the evidence.