4 ms·

Most of the scholars that study this are Christians with an obvious agenda of defending their faith. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread (even by you) t

Most of the scholars that study this are Christians with an obvious agenda of defending their faith. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread (even by you) there is no evidence of Jesus from when he was claimed to be alive.

anjbe 8y ago
There is no evidence for nearly any human being from that time period, barring descriptions of them after their death. And in contrast, there’s as much evidence of Jesus’ life within 100 years of his death as almost anyone else historians claim to have existed at that time period—frankly, there’s more. Thus, correctly pointing out that there is no evidence “from when he was claimed to be alive” is not a very convincing argument that the vast majority of secular Biblical historians are wrong in their belief in a historical Jesus. Two elements of Jesus’ life story are nearly universally held to be historically accurate: that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  The “vast majority” doesn’t include the historian giving the talk at Stanford I posted. I’m honestly surprised to see so much support for Jesus with no data behind it on this site.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Thomas Sheehan is not a historian. He's a philosopher and, contrary to what you seem to imply, accepts the historicity of Jesus.
hannasanarion 8y ago
That's not true at all. The existence of a historical Jesus is totally incedental to their faith. There were tons of Messianic preachers at the time, what's so unbelievable about one of them getting deified? The hypothesis that one of those people was named "Jesus of Nazareth" does exactly nothing to prove Christianity.
- owens99 8y ago
  > The existence of a historical Jesus is totally incedental to their faith. True. > There were tons of Messianic preachers at the time, what's so unbelievable about one of them getting deified? It's actually quite believable, because we have not known any other story until now. The thing is there is more compelling evidence to suggest Jesus was more a character like Hercules than he was a living person. > The hypothesis that one of those people was named "Jesus of Nazareth" does exactly nothing to prove Christianity. Correct, but it's easy to see how the inverse is troubling for many many people.

anjbe 8y ago

There is no evidence for nearly any human being from that time period, barring descriptions of them after their death. And in contrast, there’s as much evidence of Jesus’ life within 100 years of his death as almost anyone else historians claim to have existed at that time period—frankly, there’s more. Thus, correctly pointing out that there is no evidence “from when he was claimed to be alive” is not a very convincing argument that the vast majority of secular Biblical historians are wrong in their belief in a historical Jesus. Two elements of Jesus’ life story are nearly universally held to be historically accurate: that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified.

malvosenior 8y ago
The “vast majority” doesn’t include the historian giving the talk at Stanford I posted. I’m honestly surprised to see so much support for Jesus with no data behind it on this site.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Thomas Sheehan is not a historian. He's a philosopher and, contrary to what you seem to imply, accepts the historicity of Jesus.

hannasanarion 8y ago

That's not true at all. The existence of a historical Jesus is totally incedental to their faith. There were tons of Messianic preachers at the time, what's so unbelievable about one of them getting deified? The hypothesis that one of those people was named "Jesus of Nazareth" does exactly nothing to prove Christianity.

owens99 8y ago
> The existence of a historical Jesus is totally incedental to their faith. True. > There were tons of Messianic preachers at the time, what's so unbelievable about one of them getting deified? It's actually quite believable, because we have not known any other story until now. The thing is there is more compelling evidence to suggest Jesus was more a character like Hercules than he was a living person. > The hypothesis that one of those people was named "Jesus of Nazareth" does exactly nothing to prove Christianity. Correct, but it's easy to see how the inverse is troubling for many many people.