L
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Yes, I saw it when I was dabbling in atheism. Even when I claimed to be an atheist I saw it for the intellectually dishonest diatribe that it is:
members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm
There are much better “refutations of Christianity” out there than denying that Jesus even existed in the first place (granted this would probably be the easiest.
members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm
There are much better “refutations of Christianity” out there than denying that Jesus even existed in the first place (granted this would probably be the easiest.
I
ibkc
Guest
Excellent.Yes, I saw it when I was dabbling in atheism. Even when I claimed to be an atheist I saw it for the intellectually dishonest diatribe that it is:
members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm
There are much better “refutations of Christianity” out there than denying that Jesus even existed in the first place (granted this would probably be the easiest.
Without doubt most biblical scholars believe that there is reasonable evidence to conclude that there was a historical Jesus. …]
But the conclusions have been weighed in terms of “using the same sort of criteria” applied to other ancient writings. Early Christian writings should be treated no better than any other ancient writing – but they should not be treated any worse.
Certainly, a strong Mythicist case would overturn such prima facie evidence. However, to date, the only mythicist to present an article review to a peer-reviewed publication is Earl Doherty. His article appeared in a 1997 edition of the Journal for Higher Criticism, a journal that declares “This Publication May be Hazardous to Your Cherished Assumptions!” But strangely, no-one published a review of his article.
Until mythicists ‘step up to the plate’ and begin to engage modern scholarship by submitting their ideas to peer-reviewed publication, there is no reason to reject the idea of a historical Jesus. Based on standard practice of conducting historical research, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a prima facie case for a historical Jesus.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
it think people are confusing between “historical Jesus” and the “biblical jesus”. prima facie applies to the former and not the latter.Based on standard practice of conducting historical research, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a prima facie case for a historical Jesus.
[/INDENT]
I
ibkc
Guest
The author of the website clearly says “historical Jesus” and is addressing the claims of the tinfoil-hat, crackpot “Jesus Myth” people. This isn’t isn’t a widely-accepted position among serious scholars, to say the least. Whether or not the historical Jesus was divine is a completely different debate.it think people are confusing between “historical Jesus” and the “biblical jesus”. prima facie applies to the former and not the latter.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
I think the debate is whether or not the historical jesus performed miracles. I dont think a decent historian would argue that supernatural miracles happened in history.Whether or not the historical Jesus was divine is a completely different debate.
I
ibkc
Guest
The debate referenced in this thread is whether Jesus actually existed. Did you bother to read the website linked to by xixxvmcm85?I think the debate is whether or not the historical jesus performed miracles. I dont think a decent historian would argue that supernatural miracles happened in history.
You are going off on an unrelated tangent.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.