Page 10 of 44 First ... 6789101112131420 ... Last
  1. #91
    DerAuslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,449
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    From your own damn article:

    Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    I did start out by saying I am out of my depth here.
    Then maybe you might want to listen to virtually all modern scholars of antiquity, since you know so little on the subject.

  2. #92
    goodlun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona CA
    Posts
    7,323
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi108 View Post
    From your own damn article:
    Then maybe you might want to listen to virtually all modern scholars of antiquity, since you know so little on the subject.
    Because these are where those citations
    are from
    http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-.../dp/0802843689
    http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter....0511659522A011
    and
    http://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Jesus-.../dp/0199246165

  3. #93
    DerAuslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,449
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Yes, because obviously Cambridge & Oxford cannot be held to any level of historical credibility.

  4. #94
    battlefields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia, Land of Oz
    Posts
    5,271
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Fucking Cambridge and Oxford, who fucking listens to those idiots?
    GET A RED BELT OR DIE TRYIN'.

  5. #95
    DerAuslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,449
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Fake, I see the problem as this & let me know what you think.

    While historians have moved on, pop culture skepticism of Christ's existence is still clinging to Bultmann like a virgin to the boy who popped her cherry.

  6. #96
    goodlun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona CA
    Posts
    7,323
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi108 View Post
    Yes, because obviously Cambridge & Oxford cannot be held to any level of historical credibility.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=bdB...page&q&f=false
    pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
    Pages 35-36 are made available it references back to (Wells 1971)
    Unfortunately the reference page with Wells on it isn't available.
    So we have a reference that is back to 1971 unfortunately with out the reference its hard to dig deeper.
    However I feel fine with not taking a statement from 1971 at face value.

  7. #97
    DerAuslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,449
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    http://books.google.com/books?id=bdB...page&q&f=false
    pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
    Pages 35-36 are made available it references back to (Wells 1971)
    Unfortunately the reference page with Wells on it isn't available.
    So we have a reference that is back to 1971 unfortunately with out the reference its hard to dig deeper.
    However I feel fine with not taking a statement from 1971 at face value.
    How old are you?

  8. #98
    goodlun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona CA
    Posts
    7,323
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi108 View Post
    How old are you?
    33
    Old enough to know consensus on these sort of things change with time.

  9. #99
    DerAuslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,449
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    http://books.google.com/books?id=bdB...page&q&f=false
    pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
    Pages 35-36 are made available it references back to (Wells 1971)
    Unfortunately the reference page with Wells on it isn't available.
    So we have a reference that is back to 1971 unfortunately with out the reference its hard to dig deeper.
    However I feel fine with not taking a statement from 1971 at face value.
    He's referring to George Well's "The Jesus of the Early Christians", published in 1971. Wells, a professor of the German language, not of history, stated that the Jesus of the early Christian era was a complete myth, and not based on any valid historical figure. This is commonly called the non-existense hypothosis. He later publish a recant of this claim in "The Jesus Myth" in 1999, stating that while he still disagreed with much of early Christianity's portrayal of Christ, he acknowledged that the material of at least the synoptic Gospels was likely to have been based off of a real Jesus.

  10. #100
    DerAuslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,449
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    33
    Old enough to know consensus on these sort of things change with time.
    1971 was not that long ago, the way these things move.

Page 10 of 44 First ... 6789101112131420 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO