Secular Historians regarding Jesus

[Fenris]

He certainly knew those who did.

So all his information was...secondhand.

I didn't say we did. But it's a false and wildly general claim to say we don't know who wrote the NT.

We don't.

That is nowhere near what I said. Do you regard it as a fringe belief when people say Julius Caesar never existed? It's the same with Jesus.

Actually, the two men are quite different. Caesar was written about by many people in non-religious texts. Jesus was written about by few people and only in religious texts. I don't see how the two can be compared.

It's not an academically accepted belief that Jesus never existed, even among atheists.

I'm sure I could find academics who claim he didn't exist.

The disciples of Jesus.

According to the religious texts that someone wrote. Hardly an unbiased source.

I don't see that it matters. Why couldn't people just point to the not-so-empty tomb that still housed Jesus' bones?

You mean the tomb in another country that he was interred in decades before?

So if I want information regarding Julius Caesar I can't use my Julius Caesar biography to get that information because I already believe that book to be correct?

A biography is not a religious text. The NT is. I'm finding it difficult to believe that you don't understand the difference.

Yes, somewhere in the 50's. That's only twenty or so years since the death of Christ. Not a long time.

That's a generation. The average lifespan back then was only in the 30s.

Paul says most of those who witnessed the risen Jesus were still alive, inviting his readers to seek them out for themselves.

Assuming they could make the journey to Judea, hey.

Here's some quotes I found from N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God.

An Anglican bishop is hardly an unbiased source either.

If the book of Exodus was not included in the Bible, would you accept the book as proof the Exodus happened in history

No.

just as you accept the story of Caesar crossing the Rubicon as happening in history?

Not a similar claim at all.

sigh

Should I name every scholar who believes as I do? I am using scholarship to back my arguments, yes. They recognize that not everything in the Bible is of one literary genre and therefore there are different rules for interpreting the different genres. This is standard stuff.

'Standard' to who?

This is the impasse we are at. I don't think that just because a story is in a religious text that automatically means we can't use it as evidence that what it narrates actually occurred in history.

It doesn't mean we 'automatically' can't use it. But if there's no corroboration from a non-religious source, there's no reason to believe it either.

Which brings us back to where we started. There exist no secular sources for Jesus's existence.

[RollTide21]

I haven't looked much into it, but I've heard it (apparently not) unanimously agreed that the 'letter from Pilate to Tiberius' is a late forgery. I'm content in my faith with trusting the (mostly) unanimous consensus that it is.

And from a cursory reading of the 'Archko volume' (which I had never heard of before), my natural position would be to see it as a forgery as well, if at least for the glaring fault as to why a middle eastern Jewish man (or his middle eastern Jewish mother) would have blonde hair and blue eyes.

There is a standard of evidence used in textual criticism that, right now, I can't remember. It's that standard that those letters seem to violate.

It is the standard that says something like: An argument to support the validity of a document is whether or not it goes against what is expected. For instance, the fact that Jesus's resurrection was reported first by women makes it less likely to be a contrived report. If it WERE contrived, whoever made it up would have undoubtedly said that men were the first to report that Jesus was alive, considering how women were viewed in that period.

Those letters seem to contain the "ideal" Jesus...particularly to those who desire Jesus to NOT be of Arabic descent.

***Edit***-It's the Criterion of Embarrassment. $1 to BrkBrln above.

[BrckBrln]

So all his information was...secondhand.

You realize you employ a huge double standard, don't you? You accept the Old Testament 'on faith' because it's a 'religious text' yet you are trying to discredit the New Testament based on the fact that we don't know who wrote some of it, that the texts are written decades after the events they narrate, that some of the information is secondhand, etc., when all of these objections are even more forceful when applied to the Old Testament. We don't know who wrote large portions of the Old Testament. The events described in some of the books are written down not decades, but centuries after they supposedly happened.

The same charges you level against the NT are even more effective against the OT that you take to be sacred. You say you are not a fideist but that's exactly what you are. You apparently are forced to believe the OT contains highly unreliable information and no historical basis for it's claims yet you accept what it says on 'faith'. That's fideism. That's fine as far as it goes but I don't think you can try and discredit the NT without at the same time doing the same to the OT.

We don't.

That's completely false. We know Paul wrote most of the letters attributed to him.

Actually, the two men are quite different. Caesar was written about by many people in non-religious texts. Jesus was written about by few people and only in religious texts. I don't see how the two can be compared.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of texts. That if one is found in a collection of books taken to be scripture, then it can't be used for historical purposes. I imaging very few people believe such a thing. Even skeptical scholars think that just because the Gospels are a 'religious text' that doesn't mean they can't be used as a historical source.

I'm sure I could find academics who claim he didn't exist.

Are there not acedemics who deny the holocaust really happened? I think you have another fundamental misunderstanding on this issue as well. You seem to think a person saying Jesus never existed is an academically equal claim to those who say he did exist. Even people who are incredibly hostile to the Christian faith, people like Bart Ehrman, think it's an utterly ridiculous claim to make that Jesus wasn't a real person. It's a radical belief not to be taken seriously. And not just because I disagree with it.

According to the religious texts that someone wrote. Hardly an unbiased source.

There are no unbiased sources. Most historians today recognize this. I don't understand this objection. Should I take my information about evolution by a mechanic because he surely isn't biased in favor of it like the biologist who actually studies it would be?

You mean the tomb in another country that he was interred in decades before?

People were around who knew where Jesus was buried. All you had to do was point to a non empty tomb to disprove the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. Instead people claimed the disciples stole the body. Why make that claim unless there was an empty tomb?

A biography is not a religious text. The NT is. I'm finding it difficult to believe that you don't understand the difference.

The Gospels are ancient Greco-Roman biography. This is the emerging consensus today.

That's a generation. The average lifespan back then was only in the 30s.

So everybody who was alive at the time of Christ death was dead before Paul wrote his letter in early to mid 50's? That's absurd.

Assuming they could make the journey to Judea, hey.

I guess you think Paul made up the claim about 500 witnesses, huh? I guess he was banking on his readers not looking into the claim, huh? Why even make the claim in the first place?

An Anglican bishop is hardly an unbiased source either.

You are not an unbiased source. I hereby disregard everything you have said, are saying, or will say.

No.

Why not?

Not a similar claim at all.

How so?

'Standard' to who?

Standard to scholarship. Do you not recognize there are different types of literature found in the Bible?

It doesn't mean we 'automatically' can't use it. But if there's no corroboration from a non-religious source, there's no reason to believe it either.

Why accept reports from non-religious sources? Are they not just as biased in reporting what they do? Should we not accept them if there is no corroborating evidence from other supposedly unbiased sources?

Which brings us back to where we started. There exist no secular sources for Jesus's existence.

Another false claim. If there were no external sources mentioning Jesus I doubt the idea that Jesus never existed would be such a fringe belief.

Look at this short video that has Bart Ehrman, the non-believer, talking about those who deny Jesus ever existed.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

[Fenris]

You realize you employ a huge double standard, don't you? You accept the Old Testament 'on faith' because it's a 'religious text' yet you are trying to discredit the New Testament based on the fact that we don't know who wrote some of it, that the texts are written decades after the events they narrate, that some of the information is secondhand, etc., when all of these objections are even more forceful when applied to the Old Testament. We don't know who wrote large portions of the Old Testament. The events described in some of the books are written down not decades, but centuries after they supposedly happened.

I apply the same standards to both bibles. They are accepted on faith. No more and no less.

The same charges you level against the NT are even more effective against the OT that you take to be sacred. You say you are not a fideist but that's exactly what you are. You apparently are forced to believe the OT contains highly unreliable information and no historical basis for it's claims yet you accept what it says on 'faith'. That's fideism. That's fine as far as it goes but I don't think you can try and discredit the NT without at the same time doing the same to the OT.

I'm not trying to discredit either bible. I apply the same standards to both: Either their claims are believed, or they are not.

That's completely false. We know Paul wrote most of the letters attributed to him.

How do we 'know' this?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of texts.

Yes, that's it.

Wasn't that easy?

Are there not acedemics who deny the holocaust really happened? I think you have another fundamental misunderstanding on this issue as well.

Again, isn't that easy?

There are no unbiased sources. Most historians today recognize this. I don't understand this objection. Should I take my information about evolution by a mechanic because he surely isn't biased in favor of it like the biologist who actually studies it would be?

I'm misunderstanding this as well. Actually for real I don't understand what you're saying here.

People were around who knew where Jesus was buried.

Really? How did they know? Decades later in another country, no less.

Instead people claimed the disciples stole the body. Why make that claim unless there was an empty tomb?

Who claimed that disciples stole the body? What text is that written in?

The Gospels are ancient Greco-Roman biography. This is the emerging consensus today.

Consensus by whom? They're religious texts that speak of god incarnate on earth. That's not a biography.

So everybody who was alive at the time of Christ death was dead before Paul wrote his letter in early to mid 50's? That's absurd.

If the average lifespan was only 30 than 25 years after the crucifixion most who heard Jesus speak would already be dead.

I guess you think Paul made up the claim about 500 witnesses, huh? I guess he was banking on his readers not looking into the claim, huh? Why even make the claim in the first place?

Bolsters his other claims. What are the odds that someone in Syria or Turkey is going to travel all the way to Judea to check it?

You are not an unbiased source. I hereby disregard everything you have said, are saying, or will say.

It is certainly your right to do so.

Standard to scholarship. Do you not recognize there are different types of literature found in the Bible?

I guess it helps to classify something as some 'other type of literature' so they don't have to believe it's literal or whatever.

Why accept reports from non-religious sources? Are they not just as biased in reporting what they do?

They can be just as biased. But. Someone writes about a king doing something might be accepted as possible. Someone makes claims of god incarnate? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And that's a big separating factor between some random historical text and a religious text.

Another false claim. If there were no external sources mentioning Jesus I doubt the idea that Jesus never existed would be such a fringe belief.

This whole thread is supposed to be about secular historians mentioning Jesus. No one has supplied a single one that lived during his lifetime.

Look at this short video that has Bart Ehrman, the non-believer

Non believer?

Wikipedia says he's a "American evangelical Christian apologist". Doesn't sound like a non believer to me.

[ewq1938]

Paul never met Jesus.

Yes he did. It was a life changing meeting for Saul.

[BrckBrln]

I apply the same standards to both bibles. They are accepted on faith. No more and no less.
I'm not trying to discredit either bible. I apply the same standards to both: Either their claims are believed, or they are not.

So the claims can be believed even when they are proved to be false? That is fideism.

How do we 'know' this?

By various means. Look it up. Nearly every scholar would believe Paul wrote at least seven of the letters.

Yes, that's it.

Wasn't that easy?

Yes, quite.

Again, isn't that easy?

Almost too easy.

I'm misunderstanding this as well. Actually for real I don't understand what you're saying here.

You say we cant trust what the NT writers say because they are involved and biased. Well, can I trust what an evolutionary biologist says about evolution since he is clearly biased in favor of evolution?

Really? How did they know? Decades later in another country, no less.

I'm talking about the the people who actually buried Jesus and knew where he was buried. If you just buried your father and somebody was claiming he has been raised from the dead, all you have to do is point him to the remains still in the grave to disprove the wild claim. Presumably, this could have been done in Jesus' case.

Who claimed that disciples stole the body? What text is that written in?

Matthew 27 and 28.

Consensus by whom? They're religious texts that speak of god incarnate on earth. That's not a biography.

Consensus by scholars who study the issue. And I said they are ancient Greco-Roman biographies which are very different from modern biographies. I think there are biographies of Caesar that say when he died all kinds of strange things happened but that doesn't mean we don't believe Caesar died in the way told.

If the average lifespan was only 30 than 25 years after the crucifixion most who heard Jesus speak would already be dead.

I don't know about the average lifespan being that low but even if true that doesn't mean people can't live longer. Paul was certainly alive at the time of Jesus' death and two decades later when writing he claims that most of the 500 are still alive as well although some have fallen asleep.

Bolsters his other claims. What are the odds that someone in Syria or Turkey is going to travel all the way to Judea to check it?

I imagine pretty good especially since Paul says if Christ wasn't raised from the dead then he is a false teacher and Christianity is a lie not worth living. But of course, I doubt Paul only told the people living in Turkey about the 500 witnesses. I image those around Jerusalem also knew about them as well and could seek them out on their own. Seems like, if it weren't true, Paul could have saved himself some trouble and just not have made up the claim in the first place.

It is certainly your right to do so.

Surely you see the ridiculousness in it? You can't just call N.T. Wright biased and disregard everything he says. What he says is accepted by most people. Women were not accepted as witnesses the same as men were in those days. So if you were making up a story about something essential to your newly made up religion, why have women discovering the tomb instead of trustworthy men?

I guess it helps to classify something as some 'other type of literature' so they don't have to believe it's literal or whatever.

That's not how they go about their work. I don't understand why you and a lot of Christians don't understand this. Not to be demeaning or anything but I guess it's just a real unfamiliarity with how texts are to be interpreted.

They can be just as biased. But. Someone writes about a king doing something might be accepted as possible. Someone makes claims of god incarnate? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And that's a big separating factor between some random historical text and a religious text.

What is extraordinary about the claim that somebody was crucified? Why can that not be trusted in a religious text but trusted in a non-religious text?

[quote]This whole thread is supposed to be about secular historians mentioning Jesus. No one has supplied a single one that lived during his lifetime./quote]

Here again is the unfamiliarity with how historians do history. Your insistence that we must have a written source during the lifetime of Jesus or else we can know nothing about him is something no historian subscribes to.

Non believer?

Wikipedia says he's a "American evangelical Christian apologist". Doesn't sound like a non believer to me.

Where do you get this from? Ehrman is probably the most prominent skeptic of the NT today. He was a Christian but now he is a pretty radical skeptic. He says in the video that he knows of no serious scholar who denies that Jesus ever existed.

[Fenris]

So the claims can be believed even when they are proved to be false? That is fideism.

So far as I know, no one has proved either bible 'false', either.

By various means. Look it up. Nearly every scholar would believe Paul wrote at least seven of the letters.

Again, here we go with the 'nearly every scholar'.

You say we cant trust what the NT writers say because they are involved and biased. Well, can I trust what an evolutionary biologist says about evolution since he is clearly biased in favor of evolution?

Science is based on reproducible results, unlike religion. Although since the results of 'evolution' cannot be reproduced, perhaps it does fit better into the 'belief' category.

I'm talking about the the people who actually buried Jesus and knew where he was buried. If you just buried your father and somebody was claiming he has been raised from the dead, all you have to do is point him to the remains still in the grave to disprove the wild claim. Presumably, this could have been done in Jesus' case.

But they didn't write the bible, now did they? It was written decades later. In another country. Heck, in another language. This is not strong evidence.

Matthew 27 and 28.

Ah. So the same authors who claim that Jesus was crucified and arose again claim that those who doubted it said the body was stolen. Again, this is not strong evidence. Perhaps no one claimed thew body was stolen, we will never know because all we have is some believers word about it.

Consensus by scholars who study the issue.

Would these scholars be Christian by any chance?

I don't know about the average lifespan being that low but even if true that doesn't mean people can't live longer. Paul was certainly alive at the time of Jesus' death and two decades later when writing he claims that most of the 500 are still alive as well although some have fallen asleep.

Well we only have his word for it.

I imagine pretty good

I imagine not. Some farmer or shopkeeper is not going to travel hundreds of miles to check Paul's claims. Most people of that time barely ever left the town they were born in.

Surely you see the ridiculousness in it?

Um, no.

You can't just call N.T. Wright biased and disregard everything he says.

Why not?

What he says is accepted by most people.

Most 'Christian' people, perhaps.

Women were not accepted as witnesses the same as men were in those days. So if you were making up a story about something essential to your newly made up religion, why have women discovering the tomb instead of trustworthy men?

Women actually feature pretty prominently in the OT too. I don't find it a point for or against it's veracity.

That's not how they go about their work. I don't understand why you and a lot of Christians don't understand this. Not to be demeaning or anything but I guess it's just a real unfamiliarity with how texts are to be interpreted.

Sure, I would only agree with you if I was smarter. Wait, what?

What is extraordinary about the claim that somebody was crucified?

Nothing. Which is why I believe that it happened. It's the supernatural stuff that gets a skeptical eye.

Here again is the unfamiliarity with how historians do history. Your insistence that we must have a written source during the lifetime of Jesus or else we can know nothing about him is something no historian subscribes to.

I didn't say we can 'know nothing about him'. On the other hand, only a religious Christian takes the gospels as literal truth.

Where do you get this from?

Wikipedia. If it's wrong go make some edits or something.

[BrckBrln]

Again, here we go with the 'nearly every scholar'.

What do you want me to say? It's true. Nearly every scholar believes Paul wrote at least seven of the letters attributed to him. That's just a statement of fact.

Science is based on reproducible results, unlike religion. Although since the results of 'evolution' cannot be reproduced, perhaps it does fit better into the 'belief' category.

That may be a pretty narrow definition of science. What about theoretical physics? You can't reproduce a black hole or dark matter but that doesn't mean it's only a matter of belief that these things exist.

But they didn't write the bible, now did they? It was written decades later. In another country. Heck, in another language. This is not strong evidence.

An ancient text being written a few decades after the events it describes, in another country, and in another language is not the highly unreliable text you make it out to be. The same is the case for a lot of ancient figures like Alexander the Great, Augustus, Tiberius, etc. Some of our best sources for these people come maybe a century after they lived. That doesn't mean they are unreliable, especially if we see that they use older sources like the Gospels and Paul use older material and tradition.

Ah. So the same authors who claim that Jesus was crucified and arose again claim that those who doubted it said the body was stolen. Again, this is not strong evidence. Perhaps no one claimed thew body was stolen, we will never know because all we have is some believers word about it.

What would be the point in making up the story? What do you think happened to Jesus after he died?

Would these scholars be Christian by any chance?

Some are, some aren't. I think it's an emerging consensus among all NT scholars. This doesn't mean that all scholars now believe the Gospels are like my modern biography of Julius Caesar. Ancient biography is very different from modern biography but both do concern themselves with actual history.

Well we only have his word for it.

I take it you think Paul made up the claim, then? Why would he do that? He didn't need to. By making the claim he was setting himself up for exposure. Why risk that?

I imagine not. Some farmer or shopkeeper is not going to travel hundreds of miles to check Paul's claims. Most people of that time barely ever left the town they were born in.

All it would take is for one person in Corinth to travel to see if there were any witnesses so he could report back.

Um, no.
Why not?

This amazes me. You talk about me flippantly rejecting what I don't like in the Bible and label it as 'another genre' when you simply reject anybody you don't like as 'biased' and therefore unreliable. All N.T. Wright (a highly respected scholar) was doing here is pointing out a historical fact.

Most 'Christian' people, perhaps.

No.

Women actually feature pretty prominently in the OT too. I don't find it a point for or against it's veracity.

The point is that if the early Christians got together and decided to make up the story of Jesus' resurrection they likely wouldn't have had women discover the tomb. It's more likely they would have had Peter or some other highly regarded male disciple discover the empty tomb. This is what convinced the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes of the historicity of the empty tomb.

Sure, I would only agree with you if I was smarter. Wait, what?

Well you are clearly uninformed on literary matters. I'm not saying you are an idiot, just that you apparently don't understand the differences between genres.

Wikipedia. If it's wrong go make some edits or something.

Where on Wikipedia? I'm talking about Bart D. Ehrman.

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

He's not a Christian. He's highly critical of the NT. In the video he says 'I don't know of any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.' Going back the the OP, this wouldn't be the case if there were no non-Christian sources of Jesus.

[Fenris]

What do you want me to say? It's true. Nearly every scholar believes Paul wrote at least seven of the letters attributed to him. That's just a statement of fact.

Christian scholars?

That may be a pretty narrow definition of science. What about theoretical physics? You can't reproduce a black hole or dark matter but that doesn't mean it's only a matter of belief that these things exist.

They can be measured. And they have been.

An ancient text being written a few decades after the events it describes, in another country, and in another language is not the highly unreliable text you make it out to be. The same is the case for a lot of ancient figures like Alexander the Great, Augustus, Tiberius, etc. Some of our best sources for these people come maybe a century after they lived. That doesn't mean they are unreliable, especially if we see that they use older sources like the Gospels and Paul use older material and tradition.

Other texts also don't make claims about god incarnate and such. It's a completely different type of claim that requires a different level of proof.

Again, I'm not distinguishing between the bibles. I won't argue that "historically", the revelation at Sinai happened. I believe that it did, because the bible says so. But I won't try and argue that the bible is proof of it happening.

What would be the point in making up the story?

:shrug: It was something they believed. The story about a savior of mankind dying and coming back to life 3 days later predates Jesus, I understand. Doesn't mean Christians are wrong, only that it's a compelling story.

What do you think happened to Jesus after he died?

He was buried. And of story.

Some are, some aren't. I think it's an emerging consensus among all NT scholars. This doesn't mean that all scholars now believe the Gospels are like my modern biography of Julius Caesar. Ancient biography is very different from modern biography but both do concern themselves with actual history.

It helps if you believe in the book I guess.

I take it you think Paul made up the claim, then? Why would he do that? He didn't need to. By making the claim he was setting himself up for exposure. Why risk that?

What were the odds that someone was going to travel hundreds of miles to fact check something that happened decades earlier?

All it would take is for one person in Corinth to travel to see if there were any witnesses so he could report back.

Fine. How do we know no one checked? Given Paul's reception by the Jews in general, he could just write off this person's report as another "nonbeliever".

We only know from his writings that no one checked. Perhaps someone did and he omitted it?

This amazes me. You talk about me flippantly rejecting what I don't like in the Bible and label it as 'another genre' when you simply reject anybody you don't like as 'biased' and therefore unreliable. All N.T. Wright (a highly respected scholar) was doing here is pointing out a historical fact.

I'm sure you would be equally open to me quoting Jewish rabbis who cite "historical facts".

The point is that if the early Christians got together and decided to make up the story of Jesus' resurrection they likely wouldn't have had women discover the tomb. It's more likely they would have had Peter or some other highly regarded male disciple discover the empty tomb.

I fail to see why.

This is what convinced the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes of the historicity of the empty tomb.

Jewish scholar? Baptized at age 7.

He is better identified as "a scholar who is Jewish" (marginally) than "a Jewish scholar".

Well you are clearly uninformed on literary matters. I'm not saying you are an idiot, just that you apparently don't understand the differences between genres.

Yes, if I were smart as you I would doubtless be a Christian!

Where on Wikipedia? I'm talking about Bart D. Ehrman.

He's not a Christian. He's highly critical of the NT. In the video he says 'I don't know of any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.'

Including the empty tomb? I rather doubt it.

[quiet dove]

Christian scholars?

Why do you find "Christian" scholars to be so unworthy of any trust? You toss the description "Christian" as if it is an automatic, somehow, making them bias, or unworthy of any trust?

Granted, many claiming to be Christian have done many bad things, things that by their actions proved they were not Christian at all. Anyone can claim to be doing God's will, but we both know that their claiming does not make it so. "Actions speak louder than words".

Have there not been, through out the history of Israel, those making claims of prophet, or faith in the one true God, that by their actions, they proved themselves to be liars? But yet that does not make all who make claims of following and trusting the one true God somehow bias, untrustworthy, or lacking integrity.

It seems that someone who is a historian, can not put forth the findings of his study and research, with any integrity, if he is also a Christian?

With the statement that historians give claim to Paul being the author, based on the historians being Christians, their hearts must lack the integrity to put forth words worthy of any trust. That because they were Christians you have an excuse to dismiss them as biased, scholars and historian lacking the honesty and integrity to care one way or the other if, not only others, but they themselves have accurate understanding of the most important issue and decisions any and every man needs to make. And since those decisions are based on what we believe regarding God, it is pretty important that we get the facts as straight and accurate as possible.

These historians and scholars of the scripture are not just spouting stuff off for others, they themselves are putting their eternal destiny on the line, but yet because they are Christians, they cannot have the integrity to put forth the findings of their study with any honesty and lack of bias?

[Fenris]

Why do you find "Christian" scholars to be so unworthy of any trust? You toss the description "Christian" as if it is an automatic, somehow, making them bias, or unworthy of any trust?

Of course it makes them biased on this topic. Would you trust a Muslim or Jewish scholar on Jesus?

[quiet dove]

Of course it makes them biased on this topic. Would you trust a Muslim or Jewish scholar on Jesus?

I would trust a Jewish scholar about Jewish history....and not automatically consider them lacking integrity to be an honest historian.

I mean, I trust the OT to be accurate and I'm thinking those writers were indeed Jewish.... (sorry, you walked right into that one...lol)

Not to mention the NT.....

I have some Josephus writings on my computer that I go to...Jewish is not an auto bias...nor is not being a Christian for that matter

I am not talking about considering something accurate because someone claims to be an historian...but at the same time, not rejecting them based on their faith.

[turtledove]

Why do you find "Christian" scholars to be so unworthy of any trust? You toss the description "Christian" as if it is an automatic, somehow, making them bias, or unworthy of any trust?

Granted, many claiming to be Christian have done many bad things, things that by their actions proved they were not Christian at all. Anyone can claim to be doing God's will, but we both know that their claiming does not make it so. "Actions speak louder than words".

Have there not been, through out the history of Israel, those making claims of prophet, or faith in the one true God, that by their actions, they proved themselves to be liars? But yet that does not make all who make claims of following and trusting the one true God somehow bias, untrustworthy, or lacking integrity.

It seems that someone who is a historian, can not put forth the findings of his study and research, with any integrity, if he is also a Christian?

With the statement that historians give claim to Paul being the author, based on the historians being Christians, their hearts must lack the integrity to put forth words worthy of any trust. That because they were Christians you have an excuse to dismiss them as biased, scholars and historian lacking the honesty and integrity to care one way or the other if, not only others, but they themselves have accurate understanding of the most important issue and decisions any and every man needs to make. And since those decisions are based on what we believe regarding God, it is pretty important that we get the facts as straight and accurate as possible.

These historians and scholars of the scripture are not just spouting stuff off for others, they themselves are putting their eternal destiny on the line, but yet because they are Christians, they cannot have the integrity to put forth the findings of their study with any honesty and lack of bias?

Points well said and received! This Christian, a former college history teacher, thanks you!

[Fenris]

I would trust a Jewish scholar about Jewish history....and not automatically consider them lacking integrity to be an honest historian.

But you wouldn't trust them to make a theological point, especially if it contradicted your beliefs.

I mean, I trust the OT to be accurate and I'm thinking those writers were indeed Jewish.... (sorry, you walked right into that one...lol)

Those were not historians. They were believers. Just as the writers of the NT were also not historians, but believers.

I am not talking about considering something accurate because someone claims to be an historian...but at the same time, not rejecting them based on their faith.

But it is a factor.

[Fenris]

Points well said and received! This Christian, a former college history teacher, thanks you!

I rest my case.