What makes the religious believe the Gospels and Acts more h

[d.thomas]

.


What makes the religious believe the Gospels and Acts more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?



I've read that "no reputable historian denies the existence of Jesus."



How is this possible?

.

[bjs]

Aesop’s fables and Grimm’s fairy tales are presented as works of fiction. The Gospels and Acts are presented as historical events. There is not much of a comparison between them.

It is true that no reputable historian denies the existence of Jesus. A historian might deny that Jesus was divine or that he performed miracles. However, it is abundantly clear that someone, who was probably named Jesus and called the Christ, started a movement in the early part of the first century which would become the largest religion in the world.

[flitzerbiest]

Aesop’s fables and Grimm’s fairy tales are presented as works of fiction. The Gospels and Acts are presented as historical events. There is not much of a comparison between them.

It is true that no reputable historian denies the existence of Jesus. A historian might deny that Jesus was divine or that he performed miracles. However, it is abundantly clear that someone, who was probably named Jesus and called the Christ, started a movement in the early part of the first century which would become the largest religion in the world.

This atheist agrees...almost. The only quibble I have is over whether or not Jesus was called Christ during his lifetime. I tend to doubt it, and there is insufficient evidence to know.

[fredonly]

(post deleted)

[d.thomas]

Aesop’s fables and Grimm’s fairy tales are presented as works of fiction. The Gospels and Acts are presented as historical events. There is not much of a comparison between them.

It is true that no reputable historian denies the existence of Jesus. A historian might deny that Jesus was divine or that he performed miracles. However, it is abundantly clear that someone, who was probably named Jesus and called the Christ, started a movement in the early part of the first century which would become the largest religion in the world.

The Gospels and Acts are presented as historical events? So is the story of Noah's ark. What makes the religious believe?

[pladecalvo]

However, it is abundantly clear that someone, who was probably named Jesus and called the Christ, started a movement in the early part of the first century which would become the largest religion in the world.

No, that person would be called Paul.

[McCulloch]

A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing, including the very existence of Jesus, can be determined from them. Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews (the Nazi apologist) in the 19th century. Arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by Guy Fau, Prosper Alfaric, W. B. Smith, John Allegro, George Albert Wells (Emeritus Professor at Birkbeck, University of London.), Earl Doherty (B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Languages), Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy (M.A. in classical civilization) and Robert M. Price (professor of theology and scriptural studies at the Coleman Theological Seminary, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, A former Baptist minister, he was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, PhD in Systematic Theology (1981), PhD in New Testament (1993)), Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Thompson, (professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen).

New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis", but he, like bjs [above] overstates the case.

[De Maria]

This atheist agrees...almost. The only quibble I have is over whether or not Jesus was called Christ during his lifetime. I tend to doubt it, and there is insufficient evidence to know.

1. It really doesn't matter whether He was called Christ during His lifetime. He proved He is the Christ by His miracles and His Resurrection. If it was only after His Resurrection that people realized He is the Christ, that is enough.

2. According to St. Matthew, at least one person recognized that Jesus is Christ during His lifetime:
Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Goat]

This atheist agrees...almost. The only quibble I have is over whether or not Jesus was called Christ during his lifetime. I tend to doubt it, and there is insufficient evidence to know.

1. It really doesn't matter whether He was called Christ during His lifetime. He proved He is the Christ by His miracles and His Resurrection. If it was only after His Resurrection that people realized He is the Christ, that is enough.

2. According to St. Matthew, at least one person recognized that Jesus is Christ during His lifetime:
Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Other than quoting religious promotional material, can you 'prove' that his miracles happened and that the Resurrection actually happened? How do I know it's not just a tall tale repeated by believers?

[Vanguard]

Aesop’s fables and Grimm’s fairy tales are presented as works of fiction. The Gospels and Acts are presented as historical events. There is not much of a comparison between them.

It is true that no reputable historian denies the existence of Jesus. A historian might deny that Jesus was divine or that he performed miracles. However, it is abundantly clear that someone, who was probably named Jesus and called the Christ, started a movement in the early part of the first century which would become the largest religion in the world.

The Gospels and Acts are presented as historical events? So is the story of Noah's ark. What makes the religious believe?

As has been pointed out by another poster, a small number of scholars believes that Jesus cannot be counted on as even being an historical figure - that is to say a larger number believe he was an historical figure. Though numbers certainly do not consitute proof, what is your stance re: the historical Jesus? If the bulk of scholarship points to an historical Jesus and no scholarship attests to the reality of Aesop's Fables can't you see how the historical Jesus is more believable? You'll notice your OP questions how the Gospels and the Acts can be more believable than Aesop's fables. Let's first flesh that question out before diving into whether Noah's tale is one such believable story.