(April 24, 2014 at 3:26 pm)ThomM Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Lek Wrote: You guys are right. I blew the Herod comment. It was Herod Antipas, not the Herod the Great, and he ruled Galilee during Jesus' lifetime. As far as the comment about the historians, I already accept the testimony of the gospel writers, but it does show that the majority of non-christian historians agree that Jesus did exist historically.
Actually - that is NOT the case
No one has actually ever shown that the majority of non-christian historians agree that the christ is anything but a mythical belief. That is claimed by the christian group - but I have not seen any SUPPORT for the statement
If a real scientific study had been done - that proved the statement true - you would have posted the actual study involved - as well as the source of the study
Claiming that it is according to YOUR research fails to prove that research is statistically valid - and included a large enough basis - how many THOUSANDS of historians have you researched - from what eras - and based on what statements?
Example - I would expect that most islamic historians accept that the christ was a historical PROPHET - not a god - and was not born of a god - as their religion states. But - that is NOT acceptance that the christ as believed by christians was a historical figure.
Another example - the acceptance that there might have been a HUMAN upon which the myths of the xtian christ started - is NOT acceptance of the christ as a historical figure as well.
IT is one thing to claim that exaggerations built up around a human religious person - and another to claim that the son of a god actually existed on earth. I would suggest that this is the MOST you would get from non-christian historians - certainly the miracles - and coming back from the dead would NOT be accepted by them.
In addition - if they did accept the christ - did they also accept lots of other "gods" as well?
Claiming that Josephus accepted the existence of the christ ignores that he also wrote about the Roman Pantheon
What good is quoting a "historian" who lists many gods?
I would also not accept the statements of historians from the era where they would have been killed for heresy if they wrote otherwise
And -Today - The majority of Historians of ALL types - Xtian as well - accept Ramses the Great -GOD of egypt - to be a historical figure - along with a few dozen other Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be gods.
Until you provide real tested research - you are simply repeating another statement from the belevers upon which you offer NO factual support
When I speak of the historical Jesus, I'm speaking of the man who was crucified by the Romans and whom christians claim to be the messiah. I'm not claiming that the majority of historians believe that he was who the bible says he was. I guess I could spend years researching individual historians and try to come up with an actual count for and against, but I just do what most people do and google a variety of web sites that seem to be neutral. The problem is that if someone brings up something like the writings of Josephus, someone will say that they were tampered with or some such thing. It's hard to find unbiased information on the subject, but if Richard Dawkins believes in a real Jesus of Nazareth anyone can.
