MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Jenny A]

H_M,

You proposed that the majority of non-Christian historians believe there is a historical Jesus. You, after much badgering came up with five names and no citations. I pointed out that with one possible exception all of their academic training is theological not historical and that several of them are Christians. And for all your large caps, that remains the case.

And guess what, Jenny, old Johnny body doesn't believe in the Resurrection. Dr. Craig gives a vivid picture of Crossan's version of a "resurrection"...after all, they debated the topic of the "Real Jesus", which you can see for yourself...here is Craig's assessment of Crossan's views.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw9jvJp_nAo

---

Interesting you should post Craig's assessment of Crossan rather than Crossan himself. Crossan does not believe in Jesus embodied the his corpse after death or that it happened as outlined in the Gospels. But he does believe in the resurrection. https://earliestchristianity.wordpress.c...valuation/http://ionofhope.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...c-crossan/----So no, he's not an atheist and is by his own account a Christian.

E.P Sanders is another guy with a degree in divinity. "Sanders identifies himself as a "liberal, modern, secularized Protestant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Sanders He does not identify himself as an atheist.

Good stuff, Jenny. My bad.

Yes, if you are going to claims things and be believed, better read them first.

Just replace E.P Sanders with Michael Grant...and go ahead and do your research on him,

WOW and admission you're wrong. Congratulations.

It's not clear whether he thinks Jesus is historical or not:

Richard Wightman Fox, professor of history, the University of Southern California, writing in Slate (April 2006) said, "Ultimately Tabor leaves the reader confused about whether he thinks the Jesus dynasty is a historical fact or merely an intriguing conjecture" and that "Tabor seems stuck in an endless loop, squinting across the sands of time as much as the terrain of Galilee and Judea, holding out for some imagined "real" contact with the historical Jesus"

Its funny you mention that, because in this link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-d-ta...00409.html , which is an article authored by James himself, he states:

"Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus' death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of "Christ," whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead."

You have to read the article in context. He is listing the events as found in the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor It's not clear whether he would call himself a Christian.

Well, it certainly isn't clear on whether he is a Christian, but it is clear that he believes in the historical Jesus. As far as him being a Christian is concerned, I have two sources which state that is he is Christian skeptic...

Precisely. A Christian.

There isn't a man educated as a historian on your list. One of them may not believe in a historical Jesus, and another couple remain Christian.

Bullshit. There was only one person on there that can be listed as a Christian, which was my bad...and that was E.P Sanders...and he was replaced by someone that is an atheist and still believes in the historicity of Jesus....

But he is a Christian. Read before you post. E.P. Sanders is your addition now, not on your earlier list.

None of the sources on the list are Christians...and I challenge you to name one person on the list that is a Christian.

Saunders and Crossan are Christian, though you wouldn't get along well with their theology. So that's two. You may have found a substitute for Saunders, but he is a Christian that was on your list. Tabor is a possible third.

Second, all accounts that I've seen show James Tabor as a skeptic, but still believes in the historicity of Jesus.

Skeptic does not equal atheist. It's very hard to determine what Tabor believes.

Third, look at the wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus where it states that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus, and you can feel free to check their citations.

And that has what to do with your proposition that there are numerous non-Christian historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus? Your list was supposed to be of non-Christians.

Third, I already posted the video where Bart Ehrman also confirms this majority view from historians regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Again has nothing to do with whether there are many non-Christian historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus.

Fourth, everyone on the list is a historian in some capacity...whether it is a new testament historian, historian on the origins of Christianity, whatever...all men are leading figures on the topic at hand...and none of them are Christians, and they still believe in the historicity of Jesus.

Theologian and historian are rather different disciplines and often at odds with each other as one requires faith and the other does not. Most of the men on your list are actually historians. But none of them with the possible exception of Tabor has any formal historical education. They all come out of Divinity school.

Note: I agree that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus. But the vast majority of biblical historians are Christian and unlike historians of other areas they tend to be theologians and literary people by training. You've had a hard time coming up with five historians who aren't Christian but do believe in a historical Jesus. In fact, you haven't managed it quite yet.

Grant, Erhman, Ludmann, and possibly Tabor. You're two short even after adding Grant.