Posted: Dec 03, 2015 2:42 am
Shrunk wrote:Leucius Charinus wrote:So is the evidence in favour of an historical Jesus so strong that someone holding the contrary position can justifiably be called a "denialist"?
It follows that anyone who wishes to evaluate a meaningful answer to this question needs to review or research as much of the evidence as possible.
No, it's just necessary to review enough to evidence to come to an informed conclusion.
Each to their own.
If someone doubted the theory of evolution, I think it would be enough for them to read thru a website summarizing the evidence to come to an acceptance of the theory.
The theory of evolution? What about your OP? What if someone questioned or doubted or opposed the theory, promulgated by the [utterly corrupt] church organisation for millennia, that Jesus was historical? At what point would the questions, doubt or opposition to this theory [actually an hypothesis] become a denial of the evidence?
Here is a summary of the evidence for Jesus:
1) The canonical books of the NT (preserved by the church organisation since antiquity)
2) The writings of the "Church Fathers" as preserved in the source labelled "Eusebius" (preserved by the church organisation since antiquity)
3) Non Ecclesiastical literary sources such as: Josephus, Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc (preserved by, or "suddenly and unexpectedly discovered" in the archives of, the [utterly corrupt] church)
4) OTHER EVIDENCE: archaeology, inscriptions, art, figurines, graffiti, papyri, manuscripts, "house-churches", etc, etc, etc.
So if this is the evidence in favour of an historical Jesus, is it so strong that someone holding the contrary position can justifiably be called a "denialist" by members of the Church Organisation of the 21st century?
I think you answered NO to this question yourself, so at least we agree on that.