Historical Jesus - Page 2

IanS · 16th August 2019, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

Try talking to a Historian and leave the bible thumpers alone. You might learn about how Historians research these questions and (spoiler) it doesn't involve accepting "anonymous 2000 year-old written claims of miracles and the supernatural" as reliable evidence.

It has been years, you could have looked it up by now...

The "experts" that you are referring too, are all employed as "Bible Scholars". They are not employed as "Historians" ... their job title and their profession is "Bible Studies and New Testament Studies".

These individuals are not studying any other subjects in history. They are solely concerned with the Bible!

Lecturers in “History” in university History Dept's do not enter that profession specifically because of and specifically with the precursor of a devout religious Christian faith. They are not lecturing about beliefs from their own pre-existing Christian faith. But bible studies scholars, every last one of them, are doing precisely that – their entire reason for interest in the subject stems their own deep personal Christian faith.

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 02:41 AM

All this has been discussed a thousand times here.
Scientific consensus is a criterion of authority when the scientists who form it do not have particular ideological interests. A consensus among Christians does not form authority... outside of Christians.

The survival of Christianity is not due to any miraculous property, but to the ability to trasvestism of their theory by generations of Christians.

Love of enemies is a maxim inspired by similar maxims of the time. It is a little original because it exaggerates so much that it becomes an inapplicable maxim. No one really loves enemies. It is not surprising that the founder of the sect thought that hell would be full to overflowing. It is logical with such maxims.

It would be interesting if the supporters of the Historical Christ to say something new for a change.

catsmate · 16th August 2019, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ricardo

You must believe that Jesus existed!

No. Will you be breaking your habit and providing evidence for this assertion?

Brainache · 16th August 2019, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

No. You just keep decreeing that there can't be a better explanation, but that's no more supported than when a completely different gang insists that there is no better explanation than controlled demolition in 9/11

I'm not decreeing anything. I'm pointing out that Historians from all over the world accept the HJ as a plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

No, you could have looked it up by now. Because actually you'd find that there are virtually no real historians actually claiming the HJ. What you have are some THEOLOGIANS pretending to be historians, while applying a "historical method" that's actually several iterations out of date compared to what actual historians use.

Are you serious? You think the only people who have studied the ancient near east are Theologians?

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

I'm not decreeing anything. I'm pointing out that Historians from all over the world accept the HJ as a plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Are you serious? You think the only people who have studied the ancient near east are Theologians?

Where did you get the idea that historians in general agree with the existence of Jesus the Galilee? The subject of the Historical Jesus does not appear in the curricula of the departments of Ancient History. It is a subject that is developed in faculties of theology or religion. The books on Ancient History that I have at home do not speak of the Historical Jesus, but of Christianity as a social and religious movement.

Brainache · 16th August 2019, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

The "experts" that you are referring too, are all employed as "Bible Scholars". They are not employed as "Historians" ... their job title and their profession is "Bible Studies and New Testament Studies".

These individuals are not studying any other subjects in history. They are solely concerned with the Bible!

Lecturers in “History” in university History Dept's do not enter that profession specifically because of and specifically with the precursor of a devout religious Christian faith. They are not lecturing about beliefs from their own pre-existing Christian faith. But bible studies scholars, every last one of them, are doing precisely that – their entire reason for interest in the subject stems their own deep personal Christian faith.

There are many secular Historians. Many of them deal with the ancient near east. The consensus is that Jesus existed.

Here is one of their journals:
https://brill.com/view/serial/CHAN

The reason you don't hear these Historians jumping up and down about the controversial topic of the HJ is that it isn't a controversial topic.

The only people for whom it is even a question are people who haven't studied it, or people like Richard Carrier out to sell sensational paperbacks.

Brainache · 16th August 2019, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by David Mo

Where did you get the idea that historians in general agree with the existence of Jesus the Galilee? The subject of the Historical Jesus does not appear in the curricula of the departments of Ancient History. It is a subject that is developed in faculties of theology or religion. The books on Ancient History that I have at home do not speak of the Historical Jesus, but of Christianity as a social and religious movement.

I get that idea because none of them are out there disagreeing with the HJ. If there was a more plausible explanation for the social and religious movement that didn't involve a HJ, then that is what those Historians would be telling us.

History, like any other academic discipline thrives on controversy. Historians are constantly disagreeing with each other over all kinds of trivial points whenever there is even a hint of doubt, it's how they make their reputations.

Right now there is one bloke (that I know of) with a history degree who claims that Jesus never existed - Richard Carrier - and from what I understand, he hasn't managed to overthrow the consensus yet.

Brainache · 16th August 2019, 03:46 AM

I saw a good documentary about this recently:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The Real Jesus Christ

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ricardo

You must believe that Jesus existed!

I'm of the opinion that a physical person who was the inspiration for Jesus may have existed, and that this is likely, but there's no solid evidence for this.

Again, discussed to death on this forum.

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

But out of all the tens of thousands of such Biblical Scholars, how many entered that profession as devout Christian believers? The answer as far as we can honestly tell is … all of them!

By the same logic, would devout Christians studying physics get their conclusions dismissed as well? Or is it just the ones who say Jesus was a regular dude and not the Messiah?

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

No, you could have looked it up by now. Because actually you'd find that there are virtually no real historians actually claiming the HJ. What you have are some THEOLOGIANS pretending to be historians, while applying a "historical method" that's actually several iterations out of date compared to what actual historians use.

How do you determine if someone's a real historian or not?

IanS · 16th August 2019, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

There are many secular Historians. Many of them deal with the ancient near east. The consensus is that Jesus existed.

Here is one of their journals:
https://brill.com/view/serial/CHAN

The reason you don't hear these Historians jumping up and down about the controversial topic of the HJ is that it isn't a controversial topic.

The only people for whom it is even a question are people who haven't studied it, or people like Richard Carrier out to sell sensational paperbacks.

You are not talking about "secular historians". You are talking about people like Bart Ehrman, who is employed with the title of “New Testament Scholar” in the “Department of Religious Studies” at “The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill”, see here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

You can look up the history, qualifications, job title etc. for all such academics who have written books about the “historicity of Jesus” saying that they are quite sure Jesus existed, and you will find that every single one of them has a background, qualifications, and job title etc. just like that of Bart Ehrman … these people are not neutral unbiased “historians”, they are very specifically Biblical Studies lecturers almost all of whom have a lifelong history of being personally immersed in the Christian faith.

TragicMonkey · 16th August 2019, 05:14 AM

The only thing completely proven is that some people living in the first century believed there had been someone called Jesus who taught religious ideas. Whether there actually was such a person, or several different people who got confused with each other, is probably impossible to know at this point because of lack of documented evidence. Everything we have is hearsay. Barring either the discovery of a hitherto unknown set of reliable documentation, the development of time travel past viewing technology, or direct testimony from an actually real deity Jesus I think we can't be certain of anything beyond that.

smartcooky · 16th August 2019, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

a....ny analysis will also show that it's structured like an ancient novel, with structures like the chiasm and inclusio that tend not to happen like that in any given person's life. So whatever information the gospel writers had about Jesus, has been severely edited to fit that structure. At the VERY LEAST its chronology was rearranged.

The even bigger problem is: you can do the same for the myth of Cthulhu, as I've actually shown in another thread, a long time ago, in a galaxy far away. Or for Superman, Luke Skywalker, or count Pierre Bezukhov, or indeed Count Dracula, or your favourite Game Of Thrones character. If your only criterion is what the book says and what is compatible enough to be possible to have been said by the same person, then almost any character ever qualifies.

And I mean, 30% self-compatible is actually piss poor even for known fiction characters. Any author worth his salt will have his characters have consistent world views, until events in the novel warrant changing them, and then he/she actually shows that happening. If you wrote a character that is all over the place like Jesus in a modern novel, unless the whole POINT is that he's a big lying hypocrite, you wouldn't get it past any publisher.

In fact you can apply all those tests to a number of mytho-historical characters such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Dr Syn (The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh), and William Tell... and they all come up with results that show them and their stories to be as real as the HJ stories.

IanS · 16th August 2019, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

By the same logic, would devout Christians studying physics get their conclusions dismissed as well? Or is it just the ones who say Jesus was a regular dude and not the Messiah?

It's not "the same logic" at all - Christians who become physicists, are not claiming to explain physics by using the bible as their source of evidence.

On the contrary, Christians who become physicists have to leave all their faith beliefs entirely outside of everything they do as scientists.

However, devout evangelical Christian preachers who become academic Bible Scholars most definitely do persist with all that same religious baggage in their role as lecturers in Biblical Studies.

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

It's not "the same logic" at all - Christians who become physicists, are not claiming to explain physics by using the bible as their source of evidence.

On the contrary, Christians who become physicists have to leave all their faith beliefs entirely outside of everything they do as scientists.

However, devout evangelical Christian preachers who become academic Bible Scholars most definitely do persist with all that same religious baggage in their role as lecturers in Biblical Studies.

That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is.

sackett · 16th August 2019, 06:04 AM

Ricardo: Why must you hit the spacebar and then the exclamation point so damned often?

I mean, Jesus Historical Christ, it gets tiresome.

And makes you look ignorant, quite aside from what else you type.

pgwenthold · 16th August 2019, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

But not equal numbers. The Academic consensus is that there was a historical Jesus (HJ).

The academic consensus is also that all the miracle stuff is ********.

So I have to ask, if he wasn't the Son of God, perform miracles and raise from the dead, is he really Jesus from the Bible?

There was a girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas and had an Aunt Em, and, in fact, inspired the character in the Wizard of Oz (she was Frank Baum's niece). But if she wasn't whisked away to the land of Oz by a tornado, can we really say that Dorothy from Wizard of Oz existed?

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by sackett

Ricardo: Why must you hit the spacebar and then the exclamation point so damned often?

I mean, Jesus Historical Christ, it gets tiresome.

And makes you look ignorant, quite aside from what else you type.

Huh?

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The academic consensus is also that all the miracle stuff is ********.

So I have to ask, if he wasn't the Son of God, perform miracles and raise from the dead, is he really Jesus from the Bible?

No, and that's why they call him the historical Jesus.

It's like if you found out that King Arthur had a real-life inspiration who was a Roman soldier and never had a sword called Excalibur or a friend called Lancelot. He's still the inspiration for the stories.

pgwenthold · 16th August 2019, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

In fact you can apply all those tests to a number of mytho-historical characters such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Dr Syn (The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh), and William Tell... and they all come up with results that show them and their stories to be as real as the HJ stories.

Yeah, and in those cases, no one objects to the idea that they are all just legends. Fictional stories created around a real person.

The story of Jesus in the bible is not history, it's legend.

pgwenthold · 16th August 2019, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

No, and that's why they call him the historical Jesus.

It's like if you found out that King Arthur had a real-life inspiration who was a Roman soldier and never had a sword called Excalibur or a friend called Lancelot. He's still the inspiration for the stories.

Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend.

As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories.

Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"? Would you say, "You must believe she existed" as is the opening post in this thread.

Dave Rogers · 16th August 2019, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is.

I can see the objection, actually. Christianity does not directly require specific beliefs about physics; just about any construction of the laws of physics can be, and has been, reconciled with Christian belief. On the other hand, a belief in the existence of Jesus is what defines a Christian. How one could find that Jesus did not exist and remain a Christian is somewhat beyond me. So it seems to me that the agreement of Christian historians that a historical Jesus existed has very weak evidential bearing on whether a historical Jesus existed in reality; it would be expected to be the case whether one did or did not.

What I'd be interested to know is, are there any instances of historians finding that there is no compelling evidence of a historical Jesus and losing their Christian faith as a result?

Dave

pgwenthold · 16th August 2019, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I can see the objection, actually. Christianity does not directly require specific beliefs about physics; just about any construction of the laws of physics can be, and has been, reconciled with Christian belief. On the other hand, a belief in the existence of Jesus is what defines a Christian. How one could find that Jesus did not exist and remain a Christian is somewhat beyond me.

To be fair, as I have pointed out, even this whole "consensus of [Christian] scholars" who agree that there was a historical Jesus also agree to nearly the same level of consensus that all the miracle claims are baseless.

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 06:28 AM

The discussion about the mere existence of Jesus the Galilee does not make much sense. You may write comments and comments without going anywhere. What is at the heart of the discussion is whether any of the facts or sayings attributed to him can be authentic. Beginning with death at the hands of the Romans, which seems to me to be the most plausible event of those attributed to it. I say that for the criterion of difficulty.

It is not impossible, but it is quite rare for a group of Jews to invent a demigod crucified in an ignominious way. I find it more plausible that they were disciples of an executed leader and some of them jumped forward fleeing from reality (cognitive dissonance)

pgwenthold · 16th August 2019, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by David Mo

The discussion about the mere existence of Jesus the Galilee does not make much sense. You may write comments and comments without going anywhere. What is at the heart of the discussion is whether any of the facts or sayings attributed to him can be authentic. Beginning with death at the hands of the Romans, which seems to me to be the most plausible event of those attributed to it. I say that for the criterion of difficulty.

I don't. Jesus of the Bible and Christian religion wasn't just a rabbi who got whacked by the Romans. Shoot, at that point, he's nothing but David Koresh.

You want to have a discussion of Jesus, the person at the basis of the Christian religion, you need to establish things that matter. Miracles, son of God stuff, rising from the dead, that kind of stuff.

Christians claim that everything they say is justified because of the empty tomb. They start there, I say we start there.

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend.

Yeah but based on a historical Arthur. Same here.

Quote:

As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories.

Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"?

Is it really just the term that bugs you? Ok let's call him the Jesus Inspiration, then.

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

I get that idea because none of them are out there disagreeing with the HJ. If there was a more plausible explanation for the social and religious movement that didn't involve a HJ, then that is what those Historians would be telling us.

This is just speculation. The historical Jesus is not a subject of ancient world history. I have seen a popular academic collection of books dedicated to Ancient History. None for the Historical Jesus. I have seen the archives of two of the major academic journals of Ancient History in my country. Not a single one dedicated to the Historical Jesus.

This is a subject for religions and theologies, not for history. That's why historians don't bother talking about it.

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You want to have a discussion of Jesus, the person at the basis of the Christian religion, you need to establish things that matter. Miracles, son of God stuff, rising from the dead, that kind of stuff.

Perhaps you can do without miracles, as some liberal theologians do, but you must at least keep the sayings. And that is no longer as easy as maintaining the fact of crucifixion (if this is).

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah but based on a historical Arthur. Same here.

Is it really just the term that bugs you? Ok let's call him the Jesus Inspiration, then.

And how important is it for history that there should be a certain Arthur if he did nothing of what the legend attributes to him? Mere anecdote.

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by David Mo

And how important is it for history that there should be a certain Arthur if he did nothing of what the legend attributes to him? Mere anecdote.

You don't think it'd be important to be able to uncover the life of this guy even if he didn't correspond much to the legend? I think it would be even more interesting and important to do so. Same for Jesus. If he's exactly as described, fine. But if he's significantly different, even better!

I get the impression that the objection to the HJ is purely on the ground that it would give legitimacy to Christianity. It wouldn't, really. And even if it did, that has no relevance to the discussion.

IanS · 16th August 2019, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is.

Sure - evidence that they do not leave that prior faith belief at the door when they become lecturers in biblical studies, is that 99.9% of them (or whatever the precise percentage is) continue to proclaim the same religious belief in Jesus after they become lecturers in that subject of biblical beliefs. That's clear evidence (actually it looks like "proof") that they most definitely did not leave their prior Jesus faith at the door.

Keep in mind that 99.9% (or whatever the number) do not just maintain a belief that Jesus was a real person. What that 99.9% continue to believe is the Christian faith that God & Jesus are real, and that the bible contains clear proof that their Chrsitian faith is justified.

Bart Ehrman is an exception to that in the following sense – whilst he is (afaik) someone who would have to agree that he certainly did not leave his Christian faith at the door, because afaik he continued to be a practising Christian for decades after becoming a Bible Studies teacher, he eventually lost most if not all of that religious faith so that today he says he is now agnostic or atheist … however, Ehrman is someone who disagrees with most of his Biblical Studies colleagues in so far as Ehrman is strongly of the opinion that most of what is usually claimed to be good evidence from the biblical writing, is in fact (he now accepts) very weak & poor as evidence of Jesus. According to Ehrman, whereas he once believed that large swathes of the gospels and letters were indeed absolutely solid and vital evidence, he now thinks only a few specific lines in the letters of Paul are convincing to him as evidence of Jesus.

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by IanS

Sure - evidence that they do not leave that prior faith belief at the door when they become lecturers in biblical studies, is that 99.9% of them (or whatever the precise percentage is) continue to proclaim the same religious belief in Jesus after they become lecturers in that subject of biblical beliefs. That's clear evidence (actually it looks like "proof") that they most definitely did not leave their prior Jesus faith at the door.

No it isn't.

But that doesn't matter. You're several steps removed from that. Not only do you not have evidence for whether these historians to begin with, you don't have evidence to back up your claim that their motivations are questionable, nor do you have a claim for your made-up percentages.

Only once you've cleared those three hurdles can you then state what I quoted above, and only then is it even worth discussing.

You're just assuming your conclusion.

Cheetah · 16th August 2019, 07:11 AM

From Wikipedia, Historicity of Jesus:

Quote:

The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 07:14 AM

Yeah but Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable when it disagrees with me.

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

You don't think it'd be important to be able to uncover the life of this guy even if he didn't correspond much to the legend? I think it would be even more interesting and important to do so. Same for Jesus. If he's exactly as described, fine. But if he's significantly different, even better!

I get the impression that the objection to the HJ is purely on the ground that it would give legitimacy to Christianity. It wouldn't, really. And even if it did, that has no relevance to the discussion.

The only thing that could be of interest would be the link between Arthur's actual facts and the legend. Not mere knowledge of his existence. But I think that would be impossible in the case of Jesus the Galilean. To establish the real facts of a character who went unnoticed by the historians of his time -none of the so-called testimonies is really a testimony that serves as a historical document-, who dragged at most a handful of peasants, seems to me almost impossible.

For the Christians to remain in the existence of a certain Jesus of whom nothing can be known seems to be of little use to them. That's why they immediately try to justify what the gospels say. Mission impossible.

David Mo · 16th August 2019, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

From Wikipedia, Historicity of Jesus:

"Near East historians" is the classical Wikipedia blunder. Near East historians go from the topic. I have already given three examples to prove it. Note that the bibliography in the Wikipedia article does not mention Middle Eastern historians, but "experts" in the Historical Jesus.

Belz... · 16th August 2019, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by David Mo

The only thing that could be of interest would be the link between Arthur's actual facts and the legend. Not mere knowledge of his existence.

...why not? Knowledge of an important historical character is fascinating in and of itself.

Quote:

But I think that would be impossible in the case of Jesus the Galilean.

Yeah but let's assume for a moment that we find some archive dating from the time that confirms a few mundane details about someone clearly identifiable as Jesus. Would that not be an important find, regardless of how different he turns out to be from the Jesus in the Gospels?

Darat · 16th August 2019, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend.

As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories.

Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"? Would you say, "You must believe she existed" as is the opening post in this thread.

This is one of the major issues I have with the claims that a historical Jesus existed. We know with absolute certainty that the Jesus in the Christian texts did not exist. So who are we claiming actually existed?

TragicMonkey · 16th August 2019, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

This is one of the major issues I have with the claims that a historical Jesus existed. We know with absolute certainty that the Jesus in the Christian texts did not exist. So who are we claiming actually existed?

Some guy.

16th August 2019, 02:36 AM	#41
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142	Originally Posted by Brainache Try talking to a Historian and leave the bible thumpers alone. You might learn about how Historians research these questions and (spoiler) it doesn't involve accepting "anonymous 2000 year-old written claims of miracles and the supernatural" as reliable evidence. It has been years, you could have looked it up by now... The "experts" that you are referring too, are all employed as "Bible Scholars". They are not employed as "Historians" ... their job title and their profession is "Bible Studies and New Testament Studies". These individuals are not studying any other subjects in history. They are solely concerned with the Bible! Lecturers in “History” in university History Dept's do not enter that profession specifically because of and specifically with the precursor of a devout religious Christian faith. They are not lecturing about beliefs from their own pre-existing Christian faith. But bible studies scholars, every last one of them, are doing precisely that – their entire reason for interest in the subject stems their own deep personal Christian faith.
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142

16th August 2019, 02:41 AM	#43
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 23,864	Originally Posted by Ricardo You must believe that Jesus existed! No. Will you be breaking your habit and providing evidence for this assertion?
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

16th August 2019, 03:04 AM	#45
David Mo Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Brainache I'm not decreeing anything. I'm pointing out that Historians from all over the world accept the HJ as a plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity. Are you serious? You think the only people who have studied the ancient near east are Theologians? Where did you get the idea that historians in general agree with the existence of Jesus the Galilee? The subject of the Historical Jesus does not appear in the curricula of the departments of Ancient History. It is a subject that is developed in faculties of theology or religion. The books on Ancient History that I have at home do not speak of the Historical Jesus, but of Christianity as a social and religious movement.
	Last edited by David Mo; 16th August 2019 at 03:06 AM.

16th August 2019, 04:08 AM	#49
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by Ricardo You must believe that Jesus existed! I'm of the opinion that a physical person who was the inspiration for Jesus may have existed, and that this is likely, but there's no solid evidence for this. Again, discussed to death on this forum.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 04:13 AM	#50
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by IanS But out of all the tens of thousands of such Biblical Scholars, how many entered that profession as devout Christian believers? The answer as far as we can honestly tell is … all of them! By the same logic, would devout Christians studying physics get their conclusions dismissed as well? Or is it just the ones who say Jesus was a regular dude and not the Messiah?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 02:49 AM	#44
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canberra Posts: 17,460	Originally Posted by HansMustermann No. You just keep decreeing that there can't be a better explanation, but that's no more supported than when a completely different gang insists that there is no better explanation than controlled demolition in 9/11 I'm not decreeing anything. I'm pointing out that Historians from all over the world accept the HJ as a plausible explanation for the origins of Christianity. Originally Posted by HansMustermann No, you could have looked it up by now. Because actually you'd find that there are virtually no real historians actually claiming the HJ. What you have are some THEOLOGIANS pretending to be historians, while applying a "historical method" that's actually several iterations out of date compared to what actual historians use. Are you serious? You think the only people who have studied the ancient near east are Theologians?

16th August 2019, 03:10 AM	#46
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canberra Posts: 17,460	Originally Posted by IanS The "experts" that you are referring too, are all employed as "Bible Scholars". They are not employed as "Historians" ... their job title and their profession is "Bible Studies and New Testament Studies". These individuals are not studying any other subjects in history. They are solely concerned with the Bible! Lecturers in “History” in university History Dept's do not enter that profession specifically because of and specifically with the precursor of a devout religious Christian faith. They are not lecturing about beliefs from their own pre-existing Christian faith. But bible studies scholars, every last one of them, are doing precisely that – their entire reason for interest in the subject stems their own deep personal Christian faith. There are many secular Historians. Many of them deal with the ancient near east. The consensus is that Jesus existed. Here is one of their journals: https://brill.com/view/serial/CHAN The reason you don't hear these Historians jumping up and down about the controversial topic of the HJ is that it isn't a controversial topic. The only people for whom it is even a question are people who haven't studied it, or people like Richard Carrier out to sell sensational paperbacks.

16th August 2019, 03:25 AM	#47
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canberra Posts: 17,460	Originally Posted by David Mo Where did you get the idea that historians in general agree with the existence of Jesus the Galilee? The subject of the Historical Jesus does not appear in the curricula of the departments of Ancient History. It is a subject that is developed in faculties of theology or religion. The books on Ancient History that I have at home do not speak of the Historical Jesus, but of Christianity as a social and religious movement. I get that idea because none of them are out there disagreeing with the HJ. If there was a more plausible explanation for the social and religious movement that didn't involve a HJ, then that is what those Historians would be telling us. History, like any other academic discipline thrives on controversy. Historians are constantly disagreeing with each other over all kinds of trivial points whenever there is even a hint of doubt, it's how they make their reputations. Right now there is one bloke (that I know of) with a history degree who claims that Jesus never existed - Richard Carrier - and from what I understand, he hasn't managed to overthrow the consensus yet.

16th August 2019, 04:14 AM	#51
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by HansMustermann No, you could have looked it up by now. Because actually you'd find that there are virtually no real historians actually claiming the HJ. What you have are some THEOLOGIANS pretending to be historians, while applying a "historical method" that's actually several iterations out of date compared to what actual historians use. How do you determine if someone's a real historian or not?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 05:08 AM	#52
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142	Originally Posted by Brainache There are many secular Historians. Many of them deal with the ancient near east. The consensus is that Jesus existed. Here is one of their journals: https://brill.com/view/serial/CHAN The reason you don't hear these Historians jumping up and down about the controversial topic of the HJ is that it isn't a controversial topic. The only people for whom it is even a question are people who haven't studied it, or people like Richard Carrier out to sell sensational paperbacks. You are not talking about "secular historians". You are talking about people like Bart Ehrman, who is employed with the title of “New Testament Scholar” in the “Department of Religious Studies” at “The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill”, see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman You can look up the history, qualifications, job title etc. for all such academics who have written books about the “historicity of Jesus” saying that they are quite sure Jesus existed, and you will find that every single one of them has a background, qualifications, and job title etc. just like that of Bart Ehrman … these people are not neutral unbiased “historians”, they are very specifically Biblical Studies lecturers almost all of whom have a lifelong history of being personally immersed in the Christian faith.
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142

16th August 2019, 05:14 AM	#53
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,496	The only thing completely proven is that some people living in the first century believed there had been someone called Jesus who taught religious ideas. Whether there actually was such a person, or several different people who got confused with each other, is probably impossible to know at this point because of lack of documented evidence. Everything we have is hearsay. Barring either the discovery of a hitherto unknown set of reliable documentation, the development of time travel past viewing technology, or direct testimony from an actually real deity Jesus I think we can't be certain of anything beyond that.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

16th August 2019, 05:20 AM	#54
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by HansMustermann a....ny analysis will also show that it's structured like an ancient novel, with structures like the chiasm and inclusio that tend not to happen like that in any given person's life. So whatever information the gospel writers had about Jesus, has been severely edited to fit that structure. At the VERY LEAST its chronology was rearranged. The even bigger problem is: you can do the same for the myth of Cthulhu, as I've actually shown in another thread, a long time ago, in a galaxy far away. Or for Superman, Luke Skywalker, or count Pierre Bezukhov, or indeed Count Dracula, or your favourite Game Of Thrones character. If your only criterion is what the book says and what is compatible enough to be possible to have been said by the same person, then almost any character ever qualifies. And I mean, 30% self-compatible is actually piss poor even for known fiction characters. Any author worth his salt will have his characters have consistent world views, until events in the novel warrant changing them, and then he/she actually shows that happening. If you wrote a character that is all over the place like Jesus in a modern novel, unless the whole POINT is that he's a big lying hypocrite, you wouldn't get it past any publisher. In fact you can apply all those tests to a number of mytho-historical characters such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Dr Syn (The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh), and William Tell... and they all come up with results that show them and their stories to be as real as the HJ stories.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

16th August 2019, 05:30 AM	#55
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142	Originally Posted by Belz... By the same logic, would devout Christians studying physics get their conclusions dismissed as well? Or is it just the ones who say Jesus was a regular dude and not the Messiah? It's not "the same logic" at all - Christians who become physicists, are not claiming to explain physics by using the bible as their source of evidence. On the contrary, Christians who become physicists have to leave all their faith beliefs entirely outside of everything they do as scientists. However, devout evangelical Christian preachers who become academic Bible Scholars most definitely do persist with all that same religious baggage in their role as lecturers in Biblical Studies.
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142

16th August 2019, 05:59 AM	#56
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by IanS It's not "the same logic" at all - Christians who become physicists, are not claiming to explain physics by using the bible as their source of evidence. On the contrary, Christians who become physicists have to leave all their faith beliefs entirely outside of everything they do as scientists. However, devout evangelical Christian preachers who become academic Bible Scholars most definitely do persist with all that same religious baggage in their role as lecturers in Biblical Studies. That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 06:04 AM	#57
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 6,381	Ricardo: Why must you hit the spacebar and then the exclamation point so damned often? I mean, Jesus Historical Christ, it gets tiresome. And makes you look ignorant, quite aside from what else you type.
	__________________ If you would learn a man's character, give him authority. If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

16th August 2019, 06:07 AM	#58
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by Brainache But not equal numbers. The Academic consensus is that there was a historical Jesus (HJ). The academic consensus is also that all the miracle stuff is ********. So I have to ask, if he wasn't the Son of God, perform miracles and raise from the dead, is he really Jesus from the Bible? There was a girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas and had an Aunt Em, and, in fact, inspired the character in the Wizard of Oz (she was Frank Baum's niece). But if she wasn't whisked away to the land of Oz by a tornado, can we really say that Dorothy from Wizard of Oz existed?
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

16th August 2019, 06:07 AM	#59
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by sackett Ricardo: Why must you hit the spacebar and then the exclamation point so damned often? I mean, Jesus Historical Christ, it gets tiresome. And makes you look ignorant, quite aside from what else you type. Huh?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 06:09 AM	#60
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by pgwenthold The academic consensus is also that all the miracle stuff is *******. So I have to ask, if he wasn't the Son of God, perform miracles and raise from the dead, is he really Jesus from the Bible? No, and that's why they call him the historical* Jesus. It's like if you found out that King Arthur had a real-life inspiration who was a Roman soldier and never had a sword called Excalibur or a friend called Lancelot. He's still the inspiration for the stories.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 06:11 AM	#61
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by smartcooky In fact you can apply all those tests to a number of mytho-historical characters such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Dr Syn (The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh), and William Tell... and they all come up with results that show them and their stories to be as real as the HJ stories. Yeah, and in those cases, no one objects to the idea that they are all just legends. Fictional stories created around a real person. The story of Jesus in the bible is not history, it's legend.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

16th August 2019, 06:15 AM	#62
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by Belz... No, and that's why they call him the historical Jesus. It's like if you found out that King Arthur had a real-life inspiration who was a Roman soldier and never had a sword called Excalibur or a friend called Lancelot. He's still the inspiration for the stories. Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend. As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories. Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"? Would you say, "You must believe she existed" as is the opening post in this thread.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

16th August 2019, 06:20 AM	#63
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,367	Originally Posted by Belz... That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is. I can see the objection, actually. Christianity does not directly require specific beliefs about physics; just about any construction of the laws of physics can be, and has been, reconciled with Christian belief. On the other hand, a belief in the existence of Jesus is what defines a Christian. How one could find that Jesus did not exist and remain a Christian is somewhat beyond me. So it seems to me that the agreement of Christian historians that a historical Jesus existed has very weak evidential bearing on whether a historical Jesus existed in reality; it would be expected to be the case whether one did or did not. What I'd be interested to know is, are there any instances of historians finding that there is no compelling evidence of a historical Jesus and losing their Christian faith as a result? Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

16th August 2019, 06:25 AM	#64
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I can see the objection, actually. Christianity does not directly require specific beliefs about physics; just about any construction of the laws of physics can be, and has been, reconciled with Christian belief. On the other hand, a belief in the existence of Jesus is what defines a Christian. How one could find that Jesus did not exist and remain a Christian is somewhat beyond me. To be fair, as I have pointed out, even this whole "consensus of [Christian] scholars" who agree that there was a historical Jesus also agree to nearly the same level of consensus that all the miracle claims are baseless.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

16th August 2019, 06:28 AM	#65
David Mo Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian Posts: 5,036	The discussion about the mere existence of Jesus the Galilee does not make much sense. You may write comments and comments without going anywhere. What is at the heart of the discussion is whether any of the facts or sayings attributed to him can be authentic. Beginning with death at the hands of the Romans, which seems to me to be the most plausible event of those attributed to it. I say that for the criterion of difficulty. It is not impossible, but it is quite rare for a group of Jews to invent a demigod crucified in an ignominious way. I find it more plausible that they were disciples of an executed leader and some of them jumped forward fleeing from reality (cognitive dissonance)
	Last edited by David Mo; 16th August 2019 at 06:33 AM.

16th August 2019, 06:33 AM	#66
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by David Mo The discussion about the mere existence of Jesus the Galilee does not make much sense. You may write comments and comments without going anywhere. What is at the heart of the discussion is whether any of the facts or sayings attributed to him can be authentic. Beginning with death at the hands of the Romans, which seems to me to be the most plausible event of those attributed to it. I say that for the criterion of difficulty. I don't. Jesus of the Bible and Christian religion wasn't just a rabbi who got whacked by the Romans. Shoot, at that point, he's nothing but David Koresh. You want to have a discussion of Jesus, the person at the basis of the Christian religion, you need to establish things that matter. Miracles, son of God stuff, rising from the dead, that kind of stuff. Christians claim that everything they say is justified because of the empty tomb. They start there, I say we start there.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

16th August 2019, 06:39 AM	#67
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend. Yeah but based on a historical Arthur. Same here. Quote: As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories. Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"? Is it really just the term that bugs you? Ok let's call him the Jesus Inspiration, then.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 06:39 AM	#68
David Mo Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Brainache I get that idea because none of them are out there disagreeing with the HJ. If there was a more plausible explanation for the social and religious movement that didn't involve a HJ, then that is what those Historians would be telling us. This is just speculation. The historical Jesus is not a subject of ancient world history. I have seen a popular academic collection of books dedicated to Ancient History. None for the Historical Jesus. I have seen the archives of two of the major academic journals of Ancient History in my country. Not a single one dedicated to the Historical Jesus. This is a subject for religions and theologies, not for history. That's why historians don't bother talking about it.

16th August 2019, 06:42 AM	#69
David Mo Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by pgwenthold You want to have a discussion of Jesus, the person at the basis of the Christian religion, you need to establish things that matter. Miracles, son of God stuff, rising from the dead, that kind of stuff. Perhaps you can do without miracles, as some liberal theologians do, but you must at least keep the sayings. And that is no longer as easy as maintaining the fact of crucifixion (if this is).

16th August 2019, 06:44 AM	#70
David Mo Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Belz... Yeah but based on a historical Arthur. Same here. Is it really just the term that bugs you? Ok let's call him the Jesus Inspiration, then. And how important is it for history that there should be a certain Arthur if he did nothing of what the legend attributes to him? Mere anecdote.

16th August 2019, 07:04 AM	#71
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by David Mo And how important is it for history that there should be a certain Arthur if he did nothing of what the legend attributes to him? Mere anecdote. You don't think it'd be important to be able to uncover the life of this guy even if he didn't correspond much to the legend? I think it would be even more interesting and important to do so. Same for Jesus. If he's exactly as described, fine. But if he's significantly different, even better! I get the impression that the objection to the HJ is purely on the ground that it would give legitimacy to Christianity. It wouldn't, really. And even if it did, that has no relevance to the discussion.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 07:06 AM	#72
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142	Originally Posted by Belz... That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is. Sure - evidence that they do not leave that prior faith belief at the door when they become lecturers in biblical studies, is that 99.9% of them (or whatever the precise percentage is) continue to proclaim the same religious belief in Jesus after they become lecturers in that subject of biblical beliefs. That's clear evidence (actually it looks like "proof") that they most definitely did not leave their prior Jesus faith at the door. Keep in mind that 99.9% (or whatever the number) do not just maintain a belief that Jesus was a real person. What that 99.9% continue to believe is the Christian faith that God & Jesus are real, and that the bible contains clear proof that their Chrsitian faith is justified. Bart Ehrman is an exception to that in the following sense – whilst he is (afaik) someone who would have to agree that he certainly did not leave his Christian faith at the door, because afaik he continued to be a practising Christian for decades after becoming a Bible Studies teacher, he eventually lost most if not all of that religious faith so that today he says he is now agnostic or atheist … however, Ehrman is someone who disagrees with most of his Biblical Studies colleagues in so far as Ehrman is strongly of the opinion that most of what is usually claimed to be good evidence from the biblical writing, is in fact (he now accepts) very weak & poor as evidence of Jesus. According to Ehrman, whereas he once believed that large swathes of the gospels and letters were indeed absolutely solid and vital evidence, he now thinks only a few specific lines in the letters of Paul are convincing to him as evidence of Jesus.
IanS Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,142	Last edited by IanS; 16th August 2019 at 07:07 AM.

16th August 2019, 07:09 AM	#73
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Originally Posted by IanS Sure - evidence that they do not leave that prior faith belief at the door when they become lecturers in biblical studies, is that 99.9% of them (or whatever the precise percentage is) continue to proclaim the same religious belief in Jesus after they become lecturers in that subject of biblical beliefs. That's clear evidence (actually it looks like "proof") that they most definitely did not leave their prior Jesus faith at the door. No it isn't. But that doesn't matter. You're several steps removed from that. Not only do you not have evidence for whether these historians to begin with, you don't have evidence to back up your claim that their motivations are questionable, nor do you have a claim for your made-up percentages. Only once you've cleared those three hurdles can you then state what I quoted above, and only then is it even worth discussing. You're just assuming your conclusion.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 07:11 AM	#74
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	From Wikipedia, Historicity of Jesus: Quote: The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

16th August 2019, 07:14 AM	#75
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,402	Yeah but Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable when it disagrees with me.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

16th August 2019, 07:22 AM	#76
David Mo Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Belz... You don't think it'd be important to be able to uncover the life of this guy even if he didn't correspond much to the legend? I think it would be even more interesting and important to do so. Same for Jesus. If he's exactly as described, fine. But if he's significantly different, even better! I get the impression that the objection to the HJ is purely on the ground that it would give legitimacy to Christianity. It wouldn't, really. And even if it did, that has no relevance to the discussion. The only thing that could be of interest would be the link between Arthur's actual facts and the legend. Not mere knowledge of his existence. But I think that would be impossible in the case of Jesus the Galilean. To establish the real facts of a character who went unnoticed by the historians of his time -none of the so-called testimonies is really a testimony that serves as a historical document-, who dragged at most a handful of peasants, seems to me almost impossible. For the Christians to remain in the existence of a certain Jesus of whom nothing can be known seems to be of little use to them. That's why they immediately try to justify what the gospels say. Mission impossible.

16th August 2019, 07:25 AM	#77
David Mo Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian Posts: 5,036	Originally Posted by Cheetah From Wikipedia, Historicity of Jesus: "Near East historians" is the classical Wikipedia blunder. Near East historians go from the topic. I have already given three examples to prove it. Note that the bibliography in the Wikipedia article does not mention Middle Eastern historians, but "experts" in the Historical Jesus.
	Last edited by David Mo; 16th August 2019 at 07:28 AM.