Thread 24491400

To what extent have contemporary scholarly and critical books about Jesus fundamentally reshaped our understanding of his historical existence, the nature of his teachings, and the origins of early Christianity, particularly when contrasting these perspectives with traditional theological interpretations?

chat gp jeet thread

>>24491400 (OP)
Honest historians will admit that he both existed and that their is not a viable naturalistic answer to explain the testimonies and sightings of his resurrected form. That does not mean they all say it happened, but they don't have a good alternative explanation

>>24491400 (OP)
>Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
That question still stands to be put to every man to answer for himself. I do though urge those who want to know, to strive to know, for they will then know with sound.

>>24491502
>>24491568

>>24491623
>>24491630
Kek saved

>>24491432
>guyz lets discuss bibble plz

They always do this low effort spam as if anybody can't see through it, kinda proves they are dishonest liars.

>>24491440
>There is not a viable naturalistic answer to explain the testimonies and sightings of his resurrected form.
Literal hearsay of unknown origin at best sourced from superstitious peasants who may or may not even have been there themselves either in the first place written down 40+ years after the alleged events at the earliest. It didn't happen. There, done.

>>24492048
Would you hold that standard to Herodotus?

>>24492063
You asked for a viable answer. The simplest and most believable answer is that the testimony is false, far more plausible than there being spirits, ghouls, and goblins that have never been seen since.

>>24492079
I'm not him, I don't necessarily agree with his point but I don't really agree with yours either. A lot of ancient history was basically going to a place and asking people what happened, often decades or centuries after the events took place. A lot of accounts of are fantastical, with reference to intervention from Gods and so on. Perhaps they didn't literally happen like that, but we mostly take the broad strokes as fact.

>>24492090
>Perhaps they didn't literally happen like that,
Naturally I do not deny that truth can be found between the lines of embellished accounts...

>But we mostly take the broad strokes as fact.
... but the broad strokes here will be the historical consensus that he at least lived, was some sort of preacher, and that he was crucified, while everything else is dubious.

>>24492133
Based

>>24491400 (OP)
There are two different things here.

1. What academics in Bible studies think is the truth
2. The truth

For (1), yes
For (2), no

It is an area of very low intellectual standards. They don't really have more material that others don't and basically it is mostly creating stories out of the Gospels. For example, saying that the Gospel of John was written in a kind of synod as a compromise between a Pauline faction and a Petrine faction. There are zero evidences of such a synod. There is zero evidence of even those two competing factions.
I have no idea what kind of drug has led to someone making that theory. Or how anyone came to believe it.
But that's how it works in that area.

>>24492530
Wrong, Only God knows the truth

>>24492823
God is a mystery - hides his face, raises the veil, etc. Thus is made the impetus for believer/noob to activity throughout the world.
>Curiosity kills the cat tl;dr