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

[Jenny A]

Once again, you can find "experts" on either side of this issue. You claimed that even a majority of atheist historians agreed that Jesus was historical. But you sure seem to have difficulties demonstrating that.

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did"

Van Voorst man have said it, but that doesn't make him right. And Van Voorst is an pastor, not an atheist. His education is theological. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Van_Voorst And I just gave you a list of atheist historians who disagree.

Several of them? [atheist historians who believe in a historical Jesus] I only listed 5, and each one is a historian some capacity...they all specialize in specific kinds of history..namely, the NT, origins of Christianity, etc...and they are all leading authorities in the field.

They are writing articles, peer reviewed journals, books, etc, based on this specific genre of history, and that is Christianity/the Historical Jesus.

Uh huh, but you didn't get to five, which is the point, huh?

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.

Well, replace him with Will Durant, who is a historian, who said himself that he is an agnostic, apparently in a book before his death..

Citation please. I'm tired of Googling to find you can't read. If Durant counts, don't just quote LINK.

I wasn't wrong, I was "mistaken"...there is a difference

I think I'll just let that stand as a refutation of your general trustworthiness and accuracy.

Again has nothing to do with whether there are many non-Christian historians who 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.

Let's take everything that you said above and compare that to what actual historians regarding this particular subject matter say.

No, let's stick to the point that you have a hard time finding those atheist historians who think the historicity of Jesus is proven fact. I already told you I agree that the majority of biblical historians (who are majority Christian and who do not have historical training) believe in a historical Jesus.

I'm not arguing anything more that you won't find a vast majority of non-Christian historians who believe in a historical Jesus. That is my point. Unlike you, I won't argue beyond the actual facts.

So, back to the texts you began with. Don't like that? That's because when we leave the rhetoric and appeals to authority and look at the actual evidence, it ain't so good, is it?

I won't argue that a mythical Jesus is proven, but the historicity is Jesus is not proven.