Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/Karma1998/11 sett 2021: differenze tra le versioni

Versione delle 14:16, 11 set 2021

Versione delle 14:31, 11 set 2021

Riga 19:

{{ping|Actormusicus}} dammi solo un attimo e rispondo.-[[Utente:Karma1998|Karma1998]] ([[Discussioni utente:Karma1998|msg]]) 14:16, 11 set 2021 (CEST)

Rieccoci qui all'ennesima segnalazione. Spiegherò le mie posizioni:

* Adamo ed Eva: vorrei sapere perché mai bisogna citare le opinioni soggettive (e polemiche) di studiosi in un'enciclopedia. Questa è una chiara violazione del principio di neutralità di Wikipedia e soprattutto, non corrisponde alla realtà. Che Adamo ed Eva siano miti eziologici è universalmente accettato nella Chiesa Cattolica, che da tempo ha imbracciato la teoria dell'evoluzione teistica. Tale cosa è confermata da numerosi studi cattolici presenti nel ''Nuovo Grande Commentario Biblico'', nella [[Bibbia di Gerusalemme]] e bella Bibbia [[Edizioni Paoline]], tutte opere pubblicate da esegeti cattolici con l'''imprimatur'' del Vaticano.

* La teoria del [[mito di Gesù]] è ormai universalmente rigettata dagli studiosi di ogni fede (e anche da quelli senza fede). Mi vengono chieste delle fonti, quindi ve le darò:

** (Gullotta 2017, p. 312): "[Per Jesus mythicism] Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles."

** Patrick Gray (2016), Varieties of Religious Invention, chapter 5, Jesus, Paul, and the birth of Christianity, Oxford University Press, p.114: "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty.

** [[Larry Hurtado]] (December 2, 2017), Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars: "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn’t have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."

** [[Michael Grant]] (2004), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p.200: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

** [[Bart Ehrman]] (2012), Did Jesus Exist?, p.20: "It is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology. This is widely recognized, to their chagrin, by mythicists themselves."

** [[Maurice Casey]] (2014) "The whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

Ne ho anche altre, se lo desiderate.

"Complotto ateo"? Oh no, non mi permetterei mai di dirlo, avendo io amici atei e agnostici. Quello che mi permetto di dire è che non accetto insulti a me in quanto cattolico. -[[Utente:Karma1998|Karma1998]] ([[Discussioni utente:Karma1998|msg]]) 14:31, 11 set 2021 (CEST)