Re: Secular Historians regarding Jesus
So all his information was...secondhand.
Originally Posted by BrckBrln
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure I could find academics who claim he didn't exist.
It's not an academically accepted belief that Jesus never existed, even among atheists.
According to the religious texts that someone wrote. Hardly an unbiased source.
You mean the tomb in another country that he was interred in decades before?
I don't see that it matters. Why couldn't people just point to the not-so-empty tomb that still housed Jesus' bones?
A biography is not a religious text. The NT is. I'm finding it difficult to believe that you don't understand the difference.
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?
That's a generation. The average lifespan back then was only in the 30s.
Yes, somewhere in the 50's. That's only twenty or so years since the death of Christ. Not a long time.
Assuming they could make the journey to Judea, hey.
Paul says most of those who witnessed the risen Jesus were still alive, inviting his readers to seek them out for themselves.
An Anglican bishop is hardly an unbiased source either.
Here's some quotes I found from N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God
If the book of Exodus was not included in the Bible, would you accept the book as proof the Exodus happened in history
Not a similar claim at all.
just as you accept the story of Caesar crossing the Rubicon as happening in history?
'Standard' to who?
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.
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.
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.
Which brings us back to where we started. There exist no secular sources for Jesus's existence.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."