RE: When does biblical history begin ?
November 20, 2017 at 10:12 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2017 at 10:16 am by GrandizerII.)
(November 18, 2017 at 12:12 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(November 17, 2017 at 11:17 pm)Succubus Wrote: This is a blatant knowing lie. Produce that evidence now! You have the floor. All eyes are upon you.
Not a lie at all. The general consensus amongst historians world wide is that Jesus was a real person who died by crucifixion under punctious pilot, the Roman prefect at the time. I remember even when I went to a public high school, Jesus' was mentioned in our World History book as the man who founded Christianity. His existence is just as much a historical fact as Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, and Mohammed. You can deny it all you want I suppose, but that is not what is widely accepted by people who actually study/investigate history.
It would be more accurate to say that the consensus among New Testament scholars is that Jesus was a historical person.
But no, it's not true that his existence is just as much a historical fact as other popular figures like Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. Even Bart Ehrman concedes that the "best" evidence we have for Jesus is in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, all riddled with biases and muddled by theological agendas. So that's not really saying much.
(November 18, 2017 at 4:05 am)Aroura Wrote:(November 18, 2017 at 12:12 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Also as a side note, you said there was historical agreement that the apostles existed? and that is simple not at all true,
Even among biblical scholars, there is a wide division of opinion on this topic.
I think you might have misread this part, or maybe I'm the one who's misreading, but the existence of the Apostles is not what's questioned by scholars, but rather the reliability of the book of Acts.
