Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Birth of Christ

The same is true of the historicity of Jesus. Clearly.

”With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. ...the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. ... like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.” - Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman is a foremost and world renowned biblical scholar with baccalaureate, masters, and PhD levels of education in biblical studies (including Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). And he’s an agnostic/atheist whose writings often attack Christianity and its historical claims. And even he asserts that the central claims about the historicity of Jesus…a Jewish rabbi who had followers, who was crucified on the orders of Pontus Pilate during Tiberius’ rein as emperor…are substantiated by source documents outside of the Gospels and other New Testament manuscripts. He is emphatic in saying the Jesus undoubtedly lived. And he provides these references in his book:

‘Did Jesus Exist…? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth’

He says that out of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who teach at major schools/universities throughout North America and Europe, he’s not aware of any of them who has any doubts that Jesus existed.

But it’s OK with me if others choose to believe whatever they choose to believe.

Well, some comment….. often we see what we want to see….. this characteristic seems to be found in both secular and non-secular worlds.

The explanations in fact do “comport” with and are consistent with actual genealogies. I doubt that you even read the articles and tried to see how indeed there is no contradiction. Simply two descriptions presented from two viewpoints.

But, that is not what you want to see. You want to see irreconcilable differences. Like the man who “proved” to me that the “Bible” could not be the word of God because the verses used different words. As long as I knew that man, he would never acknowledge his inconsistency. He was emotionally secure in his “cocoon of ignorance” …… and would not leave it.

Also, note your comment…..”…. not consistent with what would be expected from the all powerful, all loving, all knowing creator of the universe….” A mere man is deciding how the Creator should act? Doesn’t work that way.

You also left out some “all knowing creator” characteristics….. one being holy and without sin…. Pure…..and not abiding with sin.

Genetic fallacy is when you discount the reliability of information based on the source rather than on the merits of the information. It’s easy for some to discount information based on the source of the information rather than on the merits of the information. But…we also know this…that advice in particular should be judged on its merits rather than on its source. But it’s easier…and especially more palatable…for many to fall for the genetic fallacy.

Source impacts reliability, and therefore merits.

So, instead of looking at the actual merits of the information, it is judged based solely on its origin.

If one chooses to see things that way, then so be it. For them.

Did I say solely on it's origin, or did I say source impacts reliability?

Genetic fallacy, clearly the topic of my post, is when the information is judged based solely on its origin, rather than on its merits.

One’s confirmation bias on these matters is OK with me; even if I disagree with it vehemently, it’s still OK with me. I’m not threatened by it. Others can believe whatever they choose to believe, it affects me in no way whatsoever.

I don't believe you understand the Genetic Fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

It’s OK with me if you choose to believe whatever you choose to believe.

Paul was not an eyewitness, he never met Jesus. The mention of eyewitnesses is not the same as having multiple eyewitness accounts telling us what they saw.

We only have the gospels, and as mentioned, the earliest written decades after. Paul did not appear to be aware of some of the things written after his time.

Nothing you’ve said negates anything I’ve said regarding the historicity of Jesus. And nothing you’ve said negates anything Bart Ehrman’s said regarding the historicity of Jesus either.

There are very good reasons why scholars and historians are determinately unanimous in accepting that Jesus lived and was crucified by the Romans. Ehrman details these in his book.

But it’s OK with me that you choose to believe whatever you choose to believe.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Apostle Paul accomplished more in a few years than any of us will accomplish in our entire lifetimes. No one will know any of our names in 2,000 years; no one will quote us. None of us will say things that will endure through the ages. 2,000 years from now, nobody’s gonna be talking about anything that any of us ever said or did.

He got on a boat that none of us would ever dream of getting on, and went across the Mediterranean to dangerous places; he got beat up, snake-bit, stoned, shipwrecked, and on and on and on. And he planted all these churches around the Mediterranean to reach Gentile people like most of us, and the reason we know many of the things we know today is not because of what he thought, but because of what he did. And he did it without Motrin and electricity. Pretty incredible, really.

It's not what I say, or what I ''choose to believe,'' but what the historical records support. There may have been a historical figure, a Yeshua, upon which the legend was constructed, first through oral transmission, then written about decades later. I'm inclined to think that there was a charismatic preacher as the foundation of Christianity, just not like what the gospels describe.

For instance, some scholars see similarities between Paul’s epistles and material in Mark and Luke, which suggests that those authors had access to Paul’s epistles.

It’s clearly what you “choose to believe” about what the historical records support.

It's not unanimously accepted....not even close.

Ehrman says that out of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who teach at major schools/universities throughout North America and Europe, he’s not aware of any of them who has any doubts that Jesus existed.

Nope, it is what is written in the material itself and the timeline for the collection of works , gospels, Paul's letters, etc, that paints a picture of history....incomplete as it is.

Being incomplete, we may never know what really happened.

Hey Happy Flapper, are you gonna answer my fuqking question or not?

Given how extraordinary Jesus's life was it's extraordinary that there are no first hand accounts of it. Copied third hand stories still don't amount to much.