Once one understand that tens of thousands of people - in America no less - believe in 'aliens', of some kind, visiting the earth and abducting people, then the question becomes not whether or not there was an actual Jesus, but instead how people describe their lives in this world in the light of "general semantics".
What bothers me is not whether Jesus preformed these miracles but whether or not we truly understand how universal his experience of oneness with god really is. John 17:21
Do we have any extant sources concerning the earthquakes and the apparent rise of the dead following the death of Jesus as recorded by Matthew 27:51-53? Of course not.
People have a tendency, in history, to record pretty significant events that happen. The resurrection of dead people would be one of these things. Why have numerous historians operating around the era of Jesus' death remained mum about all these dead people walking around after Jesus died? Probably because it didn't happen.
The idea that there was a travelling rabbi preaching in that era is not a wild thought. The sources available would be considered enough. But his claim to being a supernatural being or any of the miracles have absolutely no evidentiary support outside the gospels. Such claims require primary source (eyewitness accounts). The fact that absolutely no one thought he was important enough to write about in his own era is a bit telling.
If he has "good historical evidence" you'd think he'd present more than Pliny who said "I saw some people worshiping Jesus" and some nebulous comment about the earth getting dark when Jesus died FROM ONE GUY. No one doubts there were Christians or that people die. How lame can you get?
Whats more, John the baptist, who's father was a temple priest, was the COUSIN of jesus. Between the two (three?) of them they knew exactly what the people were expecting, and they knew the OT inside out.
Funny, when John baptisted jesus, he pretended he didnt know him, except by divine revelation. And he did NOT say "Behold the lamb of god who takes away the sin of the world, MY COUSIN JESUS! HEY BRO, HOWS AUNT MARY?"
Jesus was most likely a real person, based on the number of contortions of reality that the gosple story writers had to twist around, to make the publically known facts about the man match OT predictions about the messiah.
But he clearly was no god. Jesus referred to adam as the first human, and the flood of noah as a historic event. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years before the time of adam, and the flood never happened
@MrHobiecat hahaha ..oh I'm sorry ..Were you being serious ? Really ? There's so much evidence for the flood that it would boggle the mind. And the ways in which Jesus fulfilled ancient prophecy are so numerous that I can only conclude that you have not read much or gone to hear many reputable seminars on the subject . Pity. Also there is a book called the Seal Of God, based on the findings of a (former) agnostic &mathematical genius who set out to prove the Bible a lie but found instead TRUTH
@Hanisipie There is not a single major christian denomination remaining that still holds the creation story and the flood story are history, they ALL realized the evidence against both is indispuable, even the catholic church. Genesis is now held as parables.
The problem is, jesus has both men listed in his two (different) geneologies in the NT. How can a real person be the decendant of parable characters?
The bible is mythology, the events never happened...
@MrHobiecat I don't know what churches you have checked out but certainly you haven't checked out the beliefs of what I know as MAJOR DENOMINATIONS. Don't write it down before you have truly checked out by attending these churches.
It would be easier to list the denominations that still hold the creation story and the flood happened as the bible claims. Lets see: the southern baptists, the scattered independant penticostals, and all those do-it-yourself preachers in cinder block churches. As far as christianity as a whole , they account for only a few percent.
@Hanisipie you are obviously ON THE INTERNET- stop making a fool of yourself in front of the entire world, and instead LEARN SOMETHING USEFUL while you are here. You are the one who apparently thinks Gensis is a first person historical document, do some reseach.
Start with the catholic church, they represent the majority of christians, see what they have to say
then hit the lutherans, and the rest of the protestant denominations in decending order of members.
@MrHobiecat I repeat - YOUR SOURCE of this statement would be what? As to research, I have done research for the past 35 years at least, of my 55years of life, including seminars . I have no interest in what the Catholic Church says as it is not my denomination. I speak only to what the Baptist Church of N.Z believes but also know that the methodist, Pentecostal, Bretheren etc also believe the Word of God.Think on this though - IF I am wrong ? - NO harm done , but IF YOU are wrong, what then?
@Hanisipie if you are wrong there is no harm done?!
So if we only get 75 years of life, and YOU are encouraging people to throw their lives away by basing them on ancient jewish goat farmer mythology, then there is NO HARM DONE in all those wasted lives?
There is no IF here. You are wrong. The bible IS wrong. The facts are indisputable.
In order to embrace the bible as history you MUST REJECT REALITY.
@Hanisipie the batist, pentecostals, bretheren etc are all MINOR demonimations. WHy are you so afraid to study what the MAJOR christian denominations have learned and adopted into their belief system? do you still hold that the sun orbits the earth too, and do you still burn people alive who think otherwise?!
The catholic church apparently has a better grasp on reality than you do. THAT is really pathetic!
@MrHobiecat Added to what I just said, You and all others in U.S.A. have never met my son. If NO-ONE ELSE in the world had ever met him I would not care about their opinion. The fact that I knew he had lived would be all that I needed and would not make me an idiot ( which I can assure you by the way, I am not) just because all others assumed I was. And believe me, on the subject of God, Christ and their Word, I assure you that many more intelligent than either you or I believe as I do.
@Hanisipie What does your son have to do with anything?
My life and my future have absolutely nothing to do with BELIEVING that your son did or did not do anything, existed or did not exist.
Likewise, if it turns out einstien was not a real person, it changes nothing, because the KNOWLEDGE he generated has nothing to do with his personal existance, and whether he discovered it or someone else did, the SCIENCE STILL WORKS THE SAME.
@Hanisipie ..And as far as jesus fulfilling hundreds of old testiment prophecies regarding the jewish messiah, the first (mark) was written 40 years (at least) after his death. It was NOT a published book, subject to review and fact checking, the author was free to write ANY THING HE WANTED, all the people who were adults when jesus was executed were DEAD by then. People had an average lifespan of 35 years back then.
@Hanisipie ...So it was very easy for the gosple authors (whoever they really were) to take the old testiment, go through the messiah prophecies one by one, and then write a story that claims jesus somehow fullfilled them.
WHO would stop them? None of the people living at the time had ever even SEEN jesus when he was alive.
How is this "good" evidence? Do you consider it as good as . . . the fossil record? As good as Hubble's pictures? There are many religions that have your equivalent evidence for their gods. Just curious?
@GuitarGuy22221 I was. Christianity is a fear based religion, as are all others. There is no proof for the Christian fantasy either. Fear is what created and sustains religious fantasy.
@qwertypoiu4321 Have to disagree with you there. Christianity is a relationship not a religion . And what holds people in it is not fear, but the lack of fear.Also the joy of knowing someone who loves us all unconditionally. However you appear not to have met Him just as you have not met me so I guess as far as you're concerned we both could be a figment of the imagination
When Habermas calls the sky getting dark "a recorded miracle", I just had to shake my head and smile. Can someone tell this so-called expert that a miracle is not a miracle if it is a naturally occuring phenomenon?
Simple: the resurrection never happened. There are ZERO recorded eyewitness testimonies of Jesus rising from the dead...just unconfirmed rumours passed by word of mouth between poorly educated peasants until, several decades later (with ample opportunities for distortions and exaggerations in the meantime), the Gospel writers assumed the rumours were true and wrote them down. By any historical standard, that's seriously unreliable "evidence".
@garethac81 I suggest that you check with 'historians' about just how much of our history is taken from writings which were far from eyewitness and were written way past several decades after the fact. Matthew was a disciple and Mark was there at the same time as a youth. Paul and Luke were not although both were well educated men who were far from the poorly educated peasants you mention. However, re those 'peasants' - "God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise."
@thiskiwigal Matthew was a disciple and Mark was there........Paul and Luke were not although both were well educated men"
The writer of Matthew is only by tradition the apostle Matthew who spoke aramaic and Hebrew. In fact, being poor, he was probably illiterate and unable to write the Matthew text in Greek as it was. Luke in the first line of his text admits he is only documenting hearsay. Paul was a Herodian, not even a Jew, a Jewish convert, according the Ebionites - a heretic.
Moby Dick has been translated into dozens of other languages as well, but that has NOTHING to do with if the story is credible or not. It doesn't matter how many people or cultures talk about it AFTER the fact, it's still just a story.
Why is it that these sources outside of the bible that account for Jesus , do so 100-150 years AFTER the supposed life/death of jesus christ? Why WASN'T there any say withing 1-2 years after hid death? SO MUCH FABBRICATION WOULD HAVE APPEARED AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS OUT!!!
what you have to know is that the writers of the new testament made sure that any copies would be exact as the original. Jews at the time considered these documents as sacred and to protect them was to make exact copies. In fact they are very strict on making copies that if one copy is slightly off from another. The copy would be thrown away.
@Darkwolf41 What you have to know is that the writers of the NT didn't have a thing to do with making sure the copies would be exact as the original!! The copies WERE NOT EXACT, you CLEARLY are misinformed! WOW!! Your comment is so far from the truth it's a bit scary! You haven't got a clue! Just as an example of how off target your comment is go read about when jesus body was discovered missing! EACH GOSPEL IS DIFFERENT not the same at all! CONTINUED:
CONTINUED HERE: You also said, "the writers of the new testament made sure that any copies would be exact as the original." How did they make sure the copies were exactly the same as the original? Finally, what do you mean buy the writers of the NT, do you mean the authors of the books or do you mean the scribes, or both? You're not being specific!
@99minerkc theres a very good reason for that.. more than likely, anything written a year or two after Jesus was born, would have been included in the New Testament.... As a matter of fact, some of the new testament has been dated back to 24 months after the death of Jesus... (I think the book of James is one of them if I'm not mistaken)
@goldyaaron I'm assuming that you have evidence to support your claims. Please provide the evidence! Anyone can make claims, it's those people who provide supporting evidence that are taken seriously and the rest not!
@goldyaaron . As a matter of fact, some of the new testament has been dated back to 24 months after the death of Jesus."
I'm afraid NOT. None of the the new testament was written until two generations after Jesus death, after Paul's writings in about 59 AD. The gospel writers were anonymous and it is most likely that they were documenting(Luke states with certainty that this is the case) oral legends being passed around for 30 years.
There weren't any sources about his life closer than what we have because Jesus was a nobody. He was one of many crazy Jews who thought they were the messiah and ended up getting offed by the Romans. To the great historians of the day, such a nobody wouldn't even merit a footnote. He was just another nameless revolutionary the Romans took out.
It wasn't until his followers started causing trouble that historians paid any attention to Jesus.
@99minerkc He said WITHIN 100-150 years. That means some are possibly 30 years or later. It's in that span because the movement grew. It was a virtually inconsequential number in the first few years, but quickly spread.
@99minerkc The same can be said for your position, whatever it is. Despite the ASSERTIONS of some people here, like @SupremeChimp, Habermas does apply historical method and weighs the importance of primary and secondary details to conclude that Jesus existed. To deny that a man named Jesus existed is the most wishful of all thinking.
@igystrvigy I agree that a "man" named Jesus "likely" existed. It's too bad though that there's no compelling historical evidence for him. Compelling in the sense of it would have been great to have had something written by Jesus or a drawing of him. Oh well.
Habermas is a fucking retard. He has no sense of historical method. Hes just another ChrisTard fantasy 'scholar' with an axe to grind. Liberty University professor, rofl, what a joke.
@SupremeChimp - supremechimp or was that supremechump - sorry it's a little hard to tell from your raving. There are many famous characters in history - Alexander the Great to name just one- who have far fewer eyewitness reports of their existence yet we all believe and are taught in school of their lives and exploits. There are far more eyewitnesses historically speaking for Jesus.
@thiskiwigal@thiskiwigal I dont know what you think youre talking about, but as far as eyewitness accounts are concerned you are laughably wrong. I think you may be confused, we have NO eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Not even the GOSPELS claim to be eyewitness accounts. If you mean NUMBER of manuscripts, then yes, there are more copies of the NT than any historical manuscript. There are no, or even references in other early works to, contemporary writings about Jesus.
Is this guy seriosly calling this extant evidence??
Christians go out of their way to be gullible!! Pliny the younger obviously got his testimony from the blind faith of existing Cristian proselytites. Thallus' tale was a hearsay account delivered through Africanus centuries after the alleged events....There is no way of knowing where Thallus's source came in. it could have been hearsay accounts from 1st century Christians who believed it themselves but witnessed nothing. Nobody knows.
Thallus in the 3rd book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong. -Africanus
Thallus is merely a guess from allos Samaritanos. "Allos actually means other in Greek, so it may simply say the other Samaritan. Theres no historical evidence of an eclipse during the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. The reason Africanus doubted the eclipse is because Easter happens near the full moon, a solar eclipse would have been impossible at that time.
That's why I'm an Undenominational Christian. If you want to know Jesus Christ and how He can change your life why don't you pray and ask Him to show you the way. How many are brave enough to do this one little simple thing? Ah but it's not so simple..
Lord Satan, release us now. The time has come to liberate our rage. The weak will fall as the strong survive. Satan prepares us for this war. We can hear your prayers of emptiness. Why are you are filled with pain? Because you lead your life of false hope. Lives of pallid incompetence hanging in a tree. We will rise together and take this world by storm. We will save you from yourself. We will conquer the feeble and walk away. With the blessings of Satan, the war shall be won!
This would be like me trying to write an account of the life of Hitler. I never met the guy, or was even born in his era, so I could only use back sources for reference and maybe throw in a thing or two from my own opinion, that's it.
Actually, a modern Hitler biography is not an apt comparison. You would be able to research multiple written testimonies from contemporaries of Hitler, you would be able to read Hitler's own writings, and you would even be able to see numerous recordings of Hitler on film as a visual reference. The Gospel writers had NONE of these things when they wrote about Jesus. A better comparison would be a modern researcher trying to write a biography of The Abominable Snowman.
"We have many examples of accounts of Jesus' life written 100- 150 yrs after his death." Big deal. They are just expanding on things that they already read. They never met Jesus or his disciples, so why would that count?
Because they may have talked to people who had actually come in contact with Jesus. It's not like they had cameras. It was passed by word of mouth for awhile, and then some historians decided to write about it after they heard multiple witness testimonies.
This guy works at a university that has troubles keeping its accreditation. That right there proves how trust worthy a guy he is. That and he has published papers lying about people's religious standings favoring belief, and other issues.
Why do Christians have to lie so much when is comes to the facts? Give the facts, then the non-believers will not attack you.
What? Did you reply to the wrong person or mess up typing that? I am having problems understanding where anything in my life is supernatural or delusional.
The most supernatural thing in my life is the fact that I am able to sleep all night long when the guy in the apartment above me goes into drunken tirades and ends up collapsing onto the ground which knocks paintings off my walls.
thats bull because in the past i have list source material and the uneducated have still tryed to say it was wrong ,,, just look at some of th past pages here im sure it will be the same,,,, some people are so scared that jesus walked and lived they would they would do any thing to try to disproove the facts even to say that historians from the past did write or exist ,,lol to the point that they have said certain pagans did nt exist ,,, because they wrote of the christ
more than recorded of julious ceaser at the time. Most of what we know about ceaser comes from ceaser himself or shakespear , and people have no trouble excepting that.
Well there are several documents that have Julius Ceasar's name on it, for example, politicians documents pleading to Julius Ceasar, statues, buildings, ect. We have basically one set of documents by 4 apostles, claiming that Jesus was real, and they were all written after Jesus was already dead for 40 years. Thats about just as much evidence as we have for the existance of Socretes, but then again, people don't claim that Socretes' word is the absolute unalterable word of god either.
did you even watch the vid , or follow up any of this research ? Thank you for correct spelling of the ceasar guy. lol. I believe you might carry some bios yourself into this has I might. The truth is there we just need look without the filters.
There are technicalities in the research though, thats the problem, there are no direct refrences outside the bible. There might have very well been a person named Jesus that existed 2000 years ago, I know a mexican named Jesus. That doesn't prove that he did exist, not yet, but it still doesn't further prove that he was the son of god, the mexican dood I know could be the son of god, thats very difficult to prove, I don't even know where to begin and qualify.
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.
he ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity; to be continued...
Read Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. Myths and archetypes inform us. By literal truth, I was saying not to take the bible literally, it's the same old myth(s) retold. It probably has lost a lot by the many times it's been edited but still retains some of the basic motifs.
All so called history is infused with the authors beliefs and social settings. None of it can be relied upon without current physical evidence. Jesus is like all the other gods, they are aspects of our inner selves. If you take it as literal truth you are missing the point.
why do christians justify this kind of childish talk? a professor who uses the word "secular" when refering to non-chrisitans in that time, and at the same time discussing historicity!! come on, shame on you professor! there's a lot of problem with his claims, first of all, it's based on retoric, not a serious discussion ("..frequently said that we don't know anything about jesus outside the new testament!" really?)
and most of the comments are sadly only "atheist vs christians"-debates.
Suetonius does not place Christus' actions 15 years after teh crucifixion, but the actions of his followers... thus the Jews were kicked out of Rome... not Christus...
In fact I do not feel compelled to carry on this conversation any further because I have provided you with ample evidence and you have only asserted that I am wrong and never provide any evidence... you sir are ridiculous and silly.
You have to create a myriad of hoops to deal with the wealth of historical references to Jesus as a real person that people worshipped. No where does anyone in antiquity argue against the Christian movement on the basis of an imaginary leader never crucified by Pontius Pilate. It would be ridiculous and silly to create a baseless theory disregarding the attestations of many repudable historians...including authors like Luke, as well as the testimony of centuries of historians. It was a pleasure
Remember how I told you the story of St. Xavior and how he became a legendary figure before he even died because people told such outlandish stories about him. Well Pliny wrote his little bit about Jesus in 113. This give plenty of time for the Christian myth to develop. Again just hearsay and not even convincing hearsay.
You do know the Josephus passages are highly disputed? This means they are not reliable but if we still use it, as i've said, it only proves that people believed in someone named Jesus. It's funny because Origen and Tertullian used much of Josephus' writings but never once do they mention these important sections about Jesus. It would seem that those sections would have been the most important to them.
The Testimonium is known to have been added to. But it is generally agreed that the passages (minus the additions) are genuine. The genuine passages do treat Jesus, the so called Christ, as a historical figure. You can rewrite thousands of years of history and historical study if you want to, and claim to have SUDDENLY discovered that Jesus didn't exist. It must be a pleasant imaginary world. Where you can write history as you see fit. :)
Justus of Tiberius, another contemporary Jewish historian, also wrote a history of the Jewish people covering this period. Although the work is now lost, we know that it was extant at least until 891 because Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, read it and expressed astonishment that it contained not one reference to Jesus (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33)
Philo Judaeus of Alexandria dates from 30 BCE - 45, Jesus' alleged life span. Among his writings is a history of the Jewish people. It is still available today. Philo was particularly interested in contemporary religious movements and sects of which there were many. Yet he never once mentions Jesus or any of the extraordinary events associated with him in the New Testament.
and for the 5th time, I've completely refuted your comments, you keep telling me to go back and look but you have not yourself. Why can't you just admit that you are wrong. These sources may refer to a Jesus or a Christ but in no way do they infer that he was an actual living man. If this were the case we would have to accept cyclops and Greek gods as truth because people mention people who worshiped them. All these authors you mention I have dealt with in detail.
No you haven't. They all treated Jesus as a real historical person connected with other historical people... James his brother... Pontius Pilate... Ananus the High Priest... etc.
The historians he is talking about (which he fails to mention because he is afraid that you will actually go read them and find out that he is lying) is Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Like I said they do not mention Jesus as a real man, only that some people believed he was some sort of savior. None of these men were Christians... If they knew Jesus and had seen his miracles don't you think they would have converted?
These "extra sources" he is talking about do not mention a present day Jesus but they say that a certain group of people believe there was a man named Jesus who lived and they believe he was crucified. The problem is none of these texts write about Jesus as a living breathing man, just as a legendary character that a group believes in. People have believed in all kinds of saviors and gods and have written about them... does that mean they are true?
Actually, having read these sources, I see that they actually treat Jesus as a person who actually existed and interacted with other historical people... like Pilate, James, and his followers.
These sources ABSOLUTELY mention Jesus as a real man. No where do they even infer that he may not have existed... Stop lying.
then you didn't read them... Josephus is definately talking about a group of people and what they believed. Josephus mentinos that they believed that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of his own religion and yet he never became a Chrisitan... Highly doubtful that he believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Besides it is commonly considered a interpolation. Tacitus mentions a sect who believed in Christus (which isn't necessarily Christ) but never says that he lived and even calls it a superstition.
Pliny mentions that people sang a hymn to Christ but again never mentions Jesus as a real, living breathing man.
Suetonius spells "Christians" correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled "Christus"and Many historians believe Christus to be a fairly common name, not Christ. In any case, he also said that people were doing things in his name, this doesn't prove anything about the historicity of Jesus.
None of these authors were eye-witnesses and the best they can serve is as hearsay accounts. Sorry you epically fail... you should have actually read them because I just destroyed you. This is my point, the guy in this video says there are 18 other sources... I have trouble finding 4 decent sources. Unless you consider the Gnostic texts but then you have to give them the same credit as Biblical texts and they definitely do not talk about Jesus as being alive but as a spirit being.
You seem like an angry person.You are correct in one thing-the best sources are eye witness sources... like the gospels.Luke has proven himself to be a most excellent historian.Josephus,Thallus,Suetonius,Tacitus, Talmud,Mara Bar-Serapion,Pliny,Celsus,Phlegon,Lucian of Samosata, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Quadratus.whether you agree with all of these sources or not is not the point.The point is we do have several texts referring to Jesus has historical.We have none treating him as a fabrication.
You may have read them but you fail to realize that none of these are contemporary sources and some even refer to a future Messiah and not one that has already lived. I thoroughly debunked your claims and the video's claims in earlier posts. None of these mention a living breathing Jesus, only that a group of people believed in a savior figure named Jesus. Simon bar-Kochbah fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies but you don't believe he is the Christ.
These people referred to in these sources claimed to follow a real man, executed by real authorities, in real places. These sources are written by intelligent people who would be aware of some super-conspiracy between Jews and gentiles to create some miracle worker. The argument just doesn't hold water. If Jesus never existed, Christianity would not have exploded in Jerusalem and traveled as far as Rome and beyond in 30 years. This theory is weak and laughable.
Then how do you explain every other religion in the world? People follow all kinds of dogma for all kinds of reasons and they all claim them superior to others. There are just to many people willing to believe anything. Islam is a great example. Your theory is what is weak and laughable, in fact, a few of us are having a good laugh right now.
I can see that you are not here for discussion... you aren't here to understand each other's perspective... just "win." That's fine... I hope it works out well for you. I don't understand the question. Your argument has no foundation. There are multiple historical sources treating Jesus as a historical person. Not one of them takes the man Christians worship and says, "This guy was invented by Christians." Any historian worth a pile of poo would do that. No one did.
The difference is, if Jesus didn't even exist... if he never walked the Jerusalem landscape, then no one would have believed in him like they did. Give 1st century Jews a little intellectual credit. Study their culture and you'll discover that they would never have worshipped a man. They never would have changed the day of worship to a Sunday. They would never believe that God could be represented as a Son and a Father. Unless Jesus really walked with them and did something to bring them faith
Sure it does. The fact that he spelled the common term Christians correctly (which looks like it could come from the greek name Christus) and then using the common name instead of the Messiah term is in keeping with ancient history written by contemporaries from different cultures. If they did not believe that Jesus existed, especially these governing authorities dealing with Christians, they would have said so. Something like, "This Jesus never lived and they still follow him." but they dont
LOL... after laughing for a few min... SHEW... angry how do I come off angry? Now if you said cocky or that I was real "matter of fact" then I might agree. Why do people always thing that others who do not share their opinion, especially on politics or religion, are angry. I see nothing that would have given you that idea.
Neither does Pliny in any place infer that Jesus wasn't a real, living breathing man. Though He does say that they sing hymns to him "as if to a god" inferring that he was actually a man. If the man didn't even exist you'd think he'd say something about that.
There are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus... not just one... the Testimonium is considered to have been tweeked by Christians, but not invented by them. Then Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ being brought before Ananus. Josephus, like the other secular writers (hence the label secular), may not have believed that Jesus was God incarnate, but they did treat him as a historical person. They all treat the person as real, though they may not practice the faith.
Suppose Jesus did live and die. It doesn't say anything about the ressurection. I mean, how would you know unless you were there. Who are you going to believe. The people that wrote the Bible? Well, if your answer is yes, then I say I didn't kill that fly in my truck. This is a proven point because I just told you. You don't need outside evidence. Just my word. Do you see where this is going?
How would you know a building was build by someone if you hadn't seen them build it? Oh, so it's logic that someone created it. Why say that the universe didn't have a creator them?
Building, by nature, are man made. But the universe? This is a different matter. How do you prove a god did it? In fact, I will agree that a higher being did create the universe. It was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his holy appendage).
But would you die for the lie that you didn't kill the fly? 10 out of the remaining 11 disciples died b/c they would not stop proclaiming Jesus' resurrection. The other one died banished on an island. I might lie for fame... but not to my death.
Muslims die everyday for what they believe... does that mean their beliefs are true beliefs? You see how this argument quickly and easily fails. The followers of David Koresh died because they believed he was the returned Messiah, why would they die for a lie?
These people died because of something they claimed to have seen. Not on the lies fed to them from someone else. They didn't die for an abstract belief that they will enter into heaven as a martyr like militant islamists. They didn't die b/c they were tricked by a cult-leader. They died b/c they saw a man go through the roman flogging and crucifixion processes, die, and then come back to life. These are very different.
Claimed is the key word. Still doesn't rebuttal my comment. You are asserting that it is true because they didn't die for an abstract belief but you have failed to, thus far, prove that Jesus was a real man, magician, savior, etc. That which can be asserted with out evidence can be dismissed. People died for David Koresh, he was a living breathing man who claimed to be the Messiah, does that mean it was true? Epic fail.
And how far has his movement gone? Nothing compared to explosion of Christianity. There are multiple historical documents, including the gospels themselves, that speak of a man who lived named Jesus. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that he did not exist. If we only had one source that discussed Jesus and his followers without insinuating that he was made up, then you may have an argument... but there are multiple sources by highly regarded historians.
Instead, your argument looks like this: Jesus as a historical person is a myth created by Jews, Romans, and other Gentiles... even though they were often killing each other and had nothing to do with each other. They fabricated multiple documents treating him as a real person, and not one shred of evidence that he didn't exist survives today... but we know that he must not have existed, because these 1st Century sources don't resemble modern history like I want them to.
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL... It took you 3 days to repeat everything you have already said. The answers to your accusations are in the comments I've already posted. Again you epically fail. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. St. Xavior wrote about his travels and never mentions miracles but before he even died there were many miraculous legends about him. So according to your reasoning we have to take any legends written about people as fact. Ridiculous. You, Sir, are silly.
Right. The burden of proof is with you. We aren't even talking about miracles yet... let's keep our arguments straight here. We are talking about the historical existence of Jesus... not legends developed later about a man who existed. With the evidence at hand, the burden of proof is most definately with you to prove that Jesus didn't exist. Your uncomfort with the sources at hand is not a compelling argument. Repitition is needed since you haven't dealt with the arguments.
LOLZ, again, I have but you refuse to acknowledge them. These "sources" you claim to be proof I have easily and repeatedly showed you why they are only hearsay and not reliable for proof of a living breathing Jesus. You just refuse to take that as an answer. I was very, very thorough in my first response to you over a week ago. This is why Atheists say Christians are deluded because you refuse anything that doesn't agree with your beliefs. So, keep up this legendary fail.
We all have our prejudices. The sooner you acknowledge that, the sooner you'll be able to have a real discussion instead of blindly spouting your opinions. If you'll take time to read a few months of comments earlier, you'll see how you are misrepresenting a lot of what these sources actually said.
The comments I'm referring to are easy to find. If you've clicked on the view all comments link, there will be like 8 or nine comments in a row by me discussing the sources. I guess I shouldn't have assumed that you had read them already.
Suetonius mentions a "Chrestus" who instigated constant disturbances among the Jews. There was such a fuss over Jesus of Nazareth that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. We could toss this out the window since it is a weird spelling of Christ, and may not refer to Jesus of Nazareth except that the event reported by Suetonius is also reported by Luke in Acts 18:2. This event took place in AD 49.
This is quite a conspiracy that people are trying to push of as history: Jesus never existed. Quite a conspiracy at the hands of Jews, Romans, and Christians. It is amazing that these people... always at each other's throats at the time of these rightings... would come together to event a carpenter from Nazareth. Accept Jesus or not... but let's be intellectually responsible with our history.
jassi4010709["there is absolutely no scientific evidence to ever show that the world was darkened for days after the "crucifiction" (and thats something that can be found out if it happened)"]
The problem isn't a lack of evidence... it is a lack of evidence within your worldview. I could say, "there is no scientific evidence that you aren't a human species from another planet gathering information to destroy us." Though I could take your and your family's word for it.
theres only 3 sources ,that could ever possible be classed as "historical proof" and none of the three ,even mention jesus.
barely even a sentance from each one.
they merely mention christus, which means messia, and christ was not jesus's last name.
and bareing in mind that appelonius was also a "messiah" at the time of fake jesus, even that one small word of christus, could class as alot more people than jesus.
You are welcome to your interpretation of the historical data... even if it flies in the face of centuries of historians and archaeologists criticism. Tacitus doesn't just mention, "Christus, the founder of the name," but the, "Christians, who were hated for their enormities." It is obvious he is referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Christianity. Especially since he mentions that Christus was put to death by Pontius Pilate.
Julius Africanus cites Thallus and argues with Thallus' assumption that the darkness was caused by a solar eclipse, "because a solar eclipse could no take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of hte Paschal full moon that Christ died." Phlegon was also cited in reference to the darkness by Julius as well as by the early church father Origen, and the sixth-century writer Philopon.
The Babylonian Talmud mentions the hanging of Yeshu (Jesus: a common name back then)on the eve of the Passover. One text even says Yeshu the Nazarene. Hanging is a very common reference to crucifixion both in the Talmud and in Christian tradition, "Cursed is anyone hanged on a tree" is referenced to Jesus. Many other passages refer to Jesus as a bastard son of an adulterous and refer to Mary as one who "played the harlot with carpenters." Yebamoth 49a, Sabb. 104b, Sanh. 106a.
Josephus mentions Jesus twice... even if you disregard the Testimonium... which most historians will not (they merely do away with the obvious Christians additions)... but even without the Testimonium we find Antiquities XX, 9.1 where he discusses Ananus bringing forth "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James..."
Suetonius mentions a "Chrestus" who instigated constant disturbances among the Jews. There was such a fuss over Jesus of Nazareth that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. We could toss this out the window since it is a weird spelling of Christ, and may not refer to Jesus of Nazareth except that the event reported by Suetonius is also reported by Luke in Acts 18:2. This event took place in AD 49.
If Jesus never existed, I'm pretty sure that these references, especially those from the Talmud and from Josephus, would go a little more like this: **And these Christians followed a man, Christus, who they say performed miracles and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. But the Jews claim this man never existed. Indeed they seem to have made this man up out of thin air. What a silly people."
But they go nothing like that do they... unless they were all in on this conspiracy!!!
And what a conspiracy!!! that people are trying to push of as history: Jesus never existed. Quite a conspiracy at the hands of Jews, Romans, and Christians. It is amazing that these people... always at each other's throats at the time of these rightings... would collaborate to event a carpenter from Nazareth. Accept Jesus or not... but let's be intellectually responsible with our history.
Once one understand that tens of thousands of people - in America no less - believe in 'aliens', of some kind, visiting the earth and abducting people, then the question becomes not whether or not there was an actual Jesus, but instead how people describe their lives in this world in the light of "general semantics".
What bothers me is not whether Jesus preformed these miracles but whether or not we truly understand how universal his experience of oneness with god really is. John 17:21
Boom.
GiordanosRetort 3 months ago
Do we have any extant sources concerning the earthquakes and the apparent rise of the dead following the death of Jesus as recorded by Matthew 27:51-53? Of course not.
PhoenixDerHamster 7 months ago
@PhoenixDerHamster
People have a tendency, in history, to record pretty significant events that happen. The resurrection of dead people would be one of these things. Why have numerous historians operating around the era of Jesus' death remained mum about all these dead people walking around after Jesus died? Probably because it didn't happen.
PhoenixDerHamster 7 months ago
The idea that there was a travelling rabbi preaching in that era is not a wild thought. The sources available would be considered enough. But his claim to being a supernatural being or any of the miracles have absolutely no evidentiary support outside the gospels. Such claims require primary source (eyewitness accounts). The fact that absolutely no one thought he was important enough to write about in his own era is a bit telling.
milesalpha1 7 months ago
These are the guys who would have written something IF there was anything to write about. None of them did.
Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD)
Pliny the younger comes too late in time to be anything but hearsay.
Matthew1944 9 months ago
If he has "good historical evidence" you'd think he'd present more than Pliny who said "I saw some people worshiping Jesus" and some nebulous comment about the earth getting dark when Jesus died FROM ONE GUY. No one doubts there were Christians or that people die. How lame can you get?
dimbulb23 1 year ago
THINK THE MESSIAH IS COMING? TAKE MY MONEY!! watch?v=Tt7eCh_mr3w
inacht26 1 year ago
Whats more, John the baptist, who's father was a temple priest, was the COUSIN of jesus. Between the two (three?) of them they knew exactly what the people were expecting, and they knew the OT inside out.
Funny, when John baptisted jesus, he pretended he didnt know him, except by divine revelation. And he did NOT say "Behold the lamb of god who takes away the sin of the world, MY COUSIN JESUS! HEY BRO, HOWS AUNT MARY?"
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
Jesus was most likely a real person, based on the number of contortions of reality that the gosple story writers had to twist around, to make the publically known facts about the man match OT predictions about the messiah.
But he clearly was no god. Jesus referred to adam as the first human, and the flood of noah as a historic event. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years before the time of adam, and the flood never happened
Jesus was wrong, therefore jesus was no god.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago 2
@MrHobiecat hahaha ..oh I'm sorry ..Were you being serious ? Really ? There's so much evidence for the flood that it would boggle the mind. And the ways in which Jesus fulfilled ancient prophecy are so numerous that I can only conclude that you have not read much or gone to hear many reputable seminars on the subject . Pity. Also there is a book called the Seal Of God, based on the findings of a (former) agnostic &mathematical genius who set out to prove the Bible a lie but found instead TRUTH
Hanisipie 9 months ago
@Hanisipie There is not a single major christian denomination remaining that still holds the creation story and the flood story are history, they ALL realized the evidence against both is indispuable, even the catholic church. Genesis is now held as parables.
The problem is, jesus has both men listed in his two (different) geneologies in the NT. How can a real person be the decendant of parable characters?
The bible is mythology, the events never happened...
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@MrHobiecat I don't know what churches you have checked out but certainly you haven't checked out the beliefs of what I know as MAJOR DENOMINATIONS. Don't write it down before you have truly checked out by attending these churches.
Hanisipie 9 months ago
@Hanisipie what? you want a list?
It would be easier to list the denominations that still hold the creation story and the flood happened as the bible claims. Lets see: the southern baptists, the scattered independant penticostals, and all those do-it-yourself preachers in cinder block churches. As far as christianity as a whole , they account for only a few percent.
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@Hanisipie ...The MAJORITY of modern christians have written off all of genesis as parables.
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@MrHobiecat And your source of this statement?
Hanisipie 9 months ago
@Hanisipie you are obviously ON THE INTERNET- stop making a fool of yourself in front of the entire world, and instead LEARN SOMETHING USEFUL while you are here. You are the one who apparently thinks Gensis is a first person historical document, do some reseach.
Start with the catholic church, they represent the majority of christians, see what they have to say
then hit the lutherans, and the rest of the protestant denominations in decending order of members.
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@MrHobiecat I repeat - YOUR SOURCE of this statement would be what? As to research, I have done research for the past 35 years at least, of my 55years of life, including seminars . I have no interest in what the Catholic Church says as it is not my denomination. I speak only to what the Baptist Church of N.Z believes but also know that the methodist, Pentecostal, Bretheren etc also believe the Word of God.Think on this though - IF I am wrong ? - NO harm done , but IF YOU are wrong, what then?
Hanisipie 9 months ago
@Hanisipie if you are wrong there is no harm done?!
So if we only get 75 years of life, and YOU are encouraging people to throw their lives away by basing them on ancient jewish goat farmer mythology, then there is NO HARM DONE in all those wasted lives?
There is no IF here. You are wrong. The bible IS wrong. The facts are indisputable.
In order to embrace the bible as history you MUST REJECT REALITY.
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@Hanisipie the batist, pentecostals, bretheren etc are all MINOR demonimations. WHy are you so afraid to study what the MAJOR christian denominations have learned and adopted into their belief system? do you still hold that the sun orbits the earth too, and do you still burn people alive who think otherwise?!
The catholic church apparently has a better grasp on reality than you do. THAT is really pathetic!
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@MrHobiecat Added to what I just said, You and all others in U.S.A. have never met my son. If NO-ONE ELSE in the world had ever met him I would not care about their opinion. The fact that I knew he had lived would be all that I needed and would not make me an idiot ( which I can assure you by the way, I am not) just because all others assumed I was. And believe me, on the subject of God, Christ and their Word, I assure you that many more intelligent than either you or I believe as I do.
Hanisipie 9 months ago
@Hanisipie What does your son have to do with anything?
My life and my future have absolutely nothing to do with BELIEVING that your son did or did not do anything, existed or did not exist.
Likewise, if it turns out einstien was not a real person, it changes nothing, because the KNOWLEDGE he generated has nothing to do with his personal existance, and whether he discovered it or someone else did, the SCIENCE STILL WORKS THE SAME.
Not true for christianity, is it?
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@Hanisipie ..And as far as jesus fulfilling hundreds of old testiment prophecies regarding the jewish messiah, the first (mark) was written 40 years (at least) after his death. It was NOT a published book, subject to review and fact checking, the author was free to write ANY THING HE WANTED, all the people who were adults when jesus was executed were DEAD by then. People had an average lifespan of 35 years back then.
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
@Hanisipie ...So it was very easy for the gosple authors (whoever they really were) to take the old testiment, go through the messiah prophecies one by one, and then write a story that claims jesus somehow fullfilled them.
WHO would stop them? None of the people living at the time had ever even SEEN jesus when he was alive.
MrHobiecat 9 months ago
How is this "good" evidence? Do you consider it as good as . . . the fossil record? As good as Hubble's pictures? There are many religions that have your equivalent evidence for their gods. Just curious?
pumpstations 1 year ago 2
scared to die??? im not
PacmanBonez 1 year ago
Religion is based on the fear of death, nothing else.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Not all of it. Christianity is not. You don't know, you've probably never been one.
GuitarGuy22221 1 year ago
@GuitarGuy22221 I was. Christianity is a fear based religion, as are all others. There is no proof for the Christian fantasy either. Fear is what created and sustains religious fantasy.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321
Man. When I hear things like this I wonder if we are talking about the same religion.
What makes you think that? Who told you all that?
ShadowAimai 1 year ago
@ShadowAimai "I wonder if we are talking about the same religion."
We are talking about fantasies, so that would include all of the fear-based religious fantasies.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago 2
@qwertypoiu4321 Have to disagree with you there. Christianity is a relationship not a religion . And what holds people in it is not fear, but the lack of fear.Also the joy of knowing someone who loves us all unconditionally. However you appear not to have met Him just as you have not met me so I guess as far as you're concerned we both could be a figment of the imagination
Hanisipie 9 months ago
Ya but thats after Jesus's death that doesn't help the case if he existed does it?
wachnathan 1 year ago
What is the name he mentions for the secular source that reports Jesus' resurrection? I can't make it out.
DyXXed 1 year ago
When Habermas calls the sky getting dark "a recorded miracle", I just had to shake my head and smile. Can someone tell this so-called expert that a miracle is not a miracle if it is a naturally occuring phenomenon?
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81
even if that was just coincidence, how do you explain the resurrection? People can't come back to life once they have died.
Darkwolf41 1 year ago
@Darkwolf41
Simple: the resurrection never happened. There are ZERO recorded eyewitness testimonies of Jesus rising from the dead...just unconfirmed rumours passed by word of mouth between poorly educated peasants until, several decades later (with ample opportunities for distortions and exaggerations in the meantime), the Gospel writers assumed the rumours were true and wrote them down. By any historical standard, that's seriously unreliable "evidence".
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 I suggest that you check with 'historians' about just how much of our history is taken from writings which were far from eyewitness and were written way past several decades after the fact. Matthew was a disciple and Mark was there at the same time as a youth. Paul and Luke were not although both were well educated men who were far from the poorly educated peasants you mention. However, re those 'peasants' - "God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise."
thiskiwigal 1 year ago
@thiskiwigal Matthew was a disciple and Mark was there........Paul and Luke were not although both were well educated men"
The writer of Matthew is only by tradition the apostle Matthew who spoke aramaic and Hebrew. In fact, being poor, he was probably illiterate and unable to write the Matthew text in Greek as it was. Luke in the first line of his text admits he is only documenting hearsay. Paul was a Herodian, not even a Jew, a Jewish convert, according the Ebionites - a heretic.
Matthew1944 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Indeed, there was not ONE single word written about Jesus in his alleged lifetime. Not ONE."
prove it
jpkfox 1 year ago
Moby Dick has been translated into dozens of other languages as well, but that has NOTHING to do with if the story is credible or not. It doesn't matter how many people or cultures talk about it AFTER the fact, it's still just a story.
aburling7 2 years ago
Why is it that these sources outside of the bible that account for Jesus , do so 100-150 years AFTER the supposed life/death of jesus christ? Why WASN'T there any say withing 1-2 years after hid death? SO MUCH FABBRICATION WOULD HAVE APPEARED AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS OUT!!!
99minerkc 2 years ago 5
@99minerkc
what you have to know is that the writers of the new testament made sure that any copies would be exact as the original. Jews at the time considered these documents as sacred and to protect them was to make exact copies. In fact they are very strict on making copies that if one copy is slightly off from another. The copy would be thrown away.
Darkwolf41 1 year ago
@Darkwolf41 What you have to know is that the writers of the NT didn't have a thing to do with making sure the copies would be exact as the original!! The copies WERE NOT EXACT, you CLEARLY are misinformed! WOW!! Your comment is so far from the truth it's a bit scary! You haven't got a clue! Just as an example of how off target your comment is go read about when jesus body was discovered missing! EACH GOSPEL IS DIFFERENT not the same at all! CONTINUED:
99minerkc 1 year ago
CONTINUED HERE: You also said, "the writers of the new testament made sure that any copies would be exact as the original." How did they make sure the copies were exactly the same as the original? Finally, what do you mean buy the writers of the NT, do you mean the authors of the books or do you mean the scribes, or both? You're not being specific!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc theres a very good reason for that.. more than likely, anything written a year or two after Jesus was born, would have been included in the New Testament.... As a matter of fact, some of the new testament has been dated back to 24 months after the death of Jesus... (I think the book of James is one of them if I'm not mistaken)
goldyaaron 1 year ago
@goldyaaron I'm assuming that you have evidence to support your claims. Please provide the evidence! Anyone can make claims, it's those people who provide supporting evidence that are taken seriously and the rest not!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc I'm still waiting for the evidence!
99minerkc 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@goldyaaron . As a matter of fact, some of the new testament has been dated back to 24 months after the death of Jesus."
I'm afraid NOT. None of the the new testament was written until two generations after Jesus death, after Paul's writings in about 59 AD. The gospel writers were anonymous and it is most likely that they were documenting(Luke states with certainty that this is the case) oral legends being passed around for 30 years.
Matthew1944 9 months ago
@99minerkc
There weren't any sources about his life closer than what we have because Jesus was a nobody. He was one of many crazy Jews who thought they were the messiah and ended up getting offed by the Romans. To the great historians of the day, such a nobody wouldn't even merit a footnote. He was just another nameless revolutionary the Romans took out.
It wasn't until his followers started causing trouble that historians paid any attention to Jesus.
imperator332 1 year ago 3
@imperator332 exactly
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc
all of the antique history was written many years after people died
niinja2 5 months ago
@niinja2 what are you talking about, the gospels?
99minerkc 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 what are you talking about, the gospels?
99minerkc 5 months ago
@99minerkc He said WITHIN 100-150 years. That means some are possibly 30 years or later. It's in that span because the movement grew. It was a virtually inconsequential number in the first few years, but quickly spread.
igystrvigy 2 months ago
@igystrvigy Wishful thinking won't make your story accurate
99minerkc 2 months ago
@99minerkc The same can be said for your position, whatever it is. Despite the ASSERTIONS of some people here, like @SupremeChimp, Habermas does apply historical method and weighs the importance of primary and secondary details to conclude that Jesus existed. To deny that a man named Jesus existed is the most wishful of all thinking.
igystrvigy 1 month ago
@igystrvigy I agree that a "man" named Jesus "likely" existed. It's too bad though that there's no compelling historical evidence for him. Compelling in the sense of it would have been great to have had something written by Jesus or a drawing of him. Oh well.
99minerkc 1 month ago
Habermas is a fucking retard. He has no sense of historical method. Hes just another ChrisTard fantasy 'scholar' with an axe to grind. Liberty University professor, rofl, what a joke.
SupremeChimp 2 years ago
@SupremeChimp - supremechimp or was that supremechump - sorry it's a little hard to tell from your raving. There are many famous characters in history - Alexander the Great to name just one- who have far fewer eyewitness reports of their existence yet we all believe and are taught in school of their lives and exploits. There are far more eyewitnesses historically speaking for Jesus.
thiskiwigal 1 year ago
@thiskiwigal @thiskiwigal I dont know what you think youre talking about, but as far as eyewitness accounts are concerned you are laughably wrong. I think you may be confused, we have NO eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Not even the GOSPELS claim to be eyewitness accounts. If you mean NUMBER of manuscripts, then yes, there are more copies of the NT than any historical manuscript. There are no, or even references in other early works to, contemporary writings about Jesus.
SupremeChimp 1 year ago
Is this guy seriosly calling this extant evidence??
Christians go out of their way to be gullible!! Pliny the younger obviously got his testimony from the blind faith of existing Cristian proselytites. Thallus' tale was a hearsay account delivered through Africanus centuries after the alleged events....There is no way of knowing where Thallus's source came in. it could have been hearsay accounts from 1st century Christians who believed it themselves but witnessed nothing. Nobody knows.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
Thallus in the 3rd book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong. -Africanus
Thallus is merely a guess from allos Samaritanos. "Allos actually means other in Greek, so it may simply say the other Samaritan. Theres no historical evidence of an eclipse during the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. The reason Africanus doubted the eclipse is because Easter happens near the full moon, a solar eclipse would have been impossible at that time.
Feredir28 2 years ago
"We really do have historical evidence."
I've been watching this guys clips and am wondering when he plans to provide this so-called evidence! So far all he has given is hearsay and BS!
jesussucksafat1 2 years ago
He just did!
blamtasticful 2 years ago
mankind of this days are in need of the Bible words more than ever
rummiena 2 years ago
nonsense
xd1rtx 2 years ago
That's why I'm an Undenominational Christian. If you want to know Jesus Christ and how He can change your life why don't you pray and ask Him to show you the way. How many are brave enough to do this one little simple thing? Ah but it's not so simple..
gutierrezh 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RobertBaral365 2 years ago
You sir are funny! lol : )
99minerkc 2 years ago
What a load of bollocks.
Pliny (the younger I presume) said no such things. He was in Turkey and asked for instructions regarding Christians. No Jesus here.
Thallus has no record. Someone else says that Thallus said........ in 221.
Not a single of the ~40 historians at the time and place mentions Jesus, his miracles, his crucification or, let alone, his resurrection.
Lies and fabrications.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago 3
This would be like me trying to write an account of the life of Hitler. I never met the guy, or was even born in his era, so I could only use back sources for reference and maybe throw in a thing or two from my own opinion, that's it.
fa272 2 years ago 9
@fa272
Actually, a modern Hitler biography is not an apt comparison. You would be able to research multiple written testimonies from contemporaries of Hitler, you would be able to read Hitler's own writings, and you would even be able to see numerous recordings of Hitler on film as a visual reference. The Gospel writers had NONE of these things when they wrote about Jesus. A better comparison would be a modern researcher trying to write a biography of The Abominable Snowman.
garethac81 1 year ago
"We have many examples of accounts of Jesus' life written 100- 150 yrs after his death." Big deal. They are just expanding on things that they already read. They never met Jesus or his disciples, so why would that count?
fa272 2 years ago 3
read this read what you wrote ,,,,so why would they count ,,,, why do you count ?
lesterclaypool1 2 years ago
Because they may have talked to people who had actually come in contact with Jesus. It's not like they had cameras. It was passed by word of mouth for awhile, and then some historians decided to write about it after they heard multiple witness testimonies.
glramer2007 2 years ago
This guy works at a university that has troubles keeping its accreditation. That right there proves how trust worthy a guy he is. That and he has published papers lying about people's religious standings favoring belief, and other issues.
Why do Christians have to lie so much when is comes to the facts? Give the facts, then the non-believers will not attack you.
nidodson 3 years ago 2
You certainly can't use common sense.You have to lie when you are living by supernatural faith/delusion.
joeinchains1001 2 years ago
What? Did you reply to the wrong person or mess up typing that? I am having problems understanding where anything in my life is supernatural or delusional.
The most supernatural thing in my life is the fact that I am able to sleep all night long when the guy in the apartment above me goes into drunken tirades and ends up collapsing onto the ground which knocks paintings off my walls.
nidodson 2 years ago
thats bull because in the past i have list source material and the uneducated have still tryed to say it was wrong ,,, just look at some of th past pages here im sure it will be the same,,,, some people are so scared that jesus walked and lived they would they would do any thing to try to disproove the facts even to say that historians from the past did write or exist ,,lol to the point that they have said certain pagans did nt exist ,,, because they wrote of the christ
lesterclaypool1 2 years ago
I said non-believers, no the uneducated mythology followers.
nidodson 2 years ago
to get eternal life just drink carrot juice once a day !!!
peaceiscontagious 3 years ago
There is practically NO outside evidence for the existence of Jesus and certainly NO evidence for the salvation story.
Philos2006 3 years ago 3
100 years after he was alive? Anybody could say "I know a guy named Jesus", give me a break.
Badboyblue3 3 years ago 2
more than recorded of julious ceaser at the time. Most of what we know about ceaser comes from ceaser himself or shakespear , and people have no trouble excepting that.
hellavadeal 3 years ago
Well there are several documents that have Julius Ceasar's name on it, for example, politicians documents pleading to Julius Ceasar, statues, buildings, ect. We have basically one set of documents by 4 apostles, claiming that Jesus was real, and they were all written after Jesus was already dead for 40 years. Thats about just as much evidence as we have for the existance of Socretes, but then again, people don't claim that Socretes' word is the absolute unalterable word of god either.
Badboyblue3 3 years ago
did you even watch the vid , or follow up any of this research ? Thank you for correct spelling of the ceasar guy. lol. I believe you might carry some bios yourself into this has I might. The truth is there we just need look without the filters.
hellavadeal 3 years ago
There are technicalities in the research though, thats the problem, there are no direct refrences outside the bible. There might have very well been a person named Jesus that existed 2000 years ago, I know a mexican named Jesus. That doesn't prove that he did exist, not yet, but it still doesn't further prove that he was the son of god, the mexican dood I know could be the son of god, thats very difficult to prove, I don't even know where to begin and qualify.
Badboyblue3 3 years ago 2
part2 -
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.
tonypeters69 3 years ago
part 1 -
he ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity; to be continued...
tonypeters69 3 years ago
dbes-
Read Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. Myths and archetypes inform us. By literal truth, I was saying not to take the bible literally, it's the same old myth(s) retold. It probably has lost a lot by the many times it's been edited but still retains some of the basic motifs.
tonypeters69 3 years ago
Darkness for 3 hours?
You'd think that would be a major occurrence, and recorded in a number of sources!
And Thallus was writing when , 100+ years later?
dbes02 3 years ago
All so called history is infused with the authors beliefs and social settings. None of it can be relied upon without current physical evidence. Jesus is like all the other gods, they are aspects of our inner selves. If you take it as literal truth you are missing the point.
tonypeters69 3 years ago
Well, what is your point?
What is "aspects of our inner selves" supposed to mean?
What is not "literal truth"?
What would 'unliteral' truth look like?
dbes02 3 years ago
dbes02-
I guess it's all over your head.
tonypeters69 3 years ago
Well tonypeters69, if you speak in incoherent riddles, then there's no 'point' for anyone to get.
Even suggesting that Jesus is a god contradicts the Bible - 1st commandment: have no other gods.
If the Bible is not meant to be taken literally then it's useless as a source of anything. And without the Bible the concept of Jesus is nothing.
But I love your phrase 'literal truth'. I'd still like to see an example of 'unliteral truth'. You've said nothing so far.
TheOtherTrueGod 3 years ago
What is over my head - you haven't said anything!
dbes02 3 years ago
A PhD in Theology.
Says it all...
tommyk77 3 years ago
Just read the quran
Left2Dollars 3 years ago
why do christians justify this kind of childish talk? a professor who uses the word "secular" when refering to non-chrisitans in that time, and at the same time discussing historicity!! come on, shame on you professor! there's a lot of problem with his claims, first of all, it's based on retoric, not a serious discussion ("..frequently said that we don't know anything about jesus outside the new testament!" really?)
and most of the comments are sadly only "atheist vs christians"-debates.
solarisocean 3 years ago
Suetonius places Christus actions 15 years after the crucifixion inciting riots in Rome, curious. This sounds more like Bar Kokhba than Jesus.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Suetonius does not place Christus' actions 15 years after teh crucifixion, but the actions of his followers... thus the Jews were kicked out of Rome... not Christus...
nacker 3 years ago
Um, yes they do... sorry but you are wrong.
In fact I do not feel compelled to carry on this conversation any further because I have provided you with ample evidence and you have only asserted that I am wrong and never provide any evidence... you sir are ridiculous and silly.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
You have to create a myriad of hoops to deal with the wealth of historical references to Jesus as a real person that people worshipped. No where does anyone in antiquity argue against the Christian movement on the basis of an imaginary leader never crucified by Pontius Pilate. It would be ridiculous and silly to create a baseless theory disregarding the attestations of many repudable historians...including authors like Luke, as well as the testimony of centuries of historians. It was a pleasure
nacker 3 years ago 2
Remember how I told you the story of St. Xavior and how he became a legendary figure before he even died because people told such outlandish stories about him. Well Pliny wrote his little bit about Jesus in 113. This give plenty of time for the Christian myth to develop. Again just hearsay and not even convincing hearsay.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
You haven't actually told the story... just mentioned it in passing. Enlighten me. And please send me to a good source so I could research the topic.
nacker 3 years ago
You do know the Josephus passages are highly disputed? This means they are not reliable but if we still use it, as i've said, it only proves that people believed in someone named Jesus. It's funny because Origen and Tertullian used much of Josephus' writings but never once do they mention these important sections about Jesus. It would seem that those sections would have been the most important to them.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
The Testimonium is known to have been added to. But it is generally agreed that the passages (minus the additions) are genuine. The genuine passages do treat Jesus, the so called Christ, as a historical figure. You can rewrite thousands of years of history and historical study if you want to, and claim to have SUDDENLY discovered that Jesus didn't exist. It must be a pleasant imaginary world. Where you can write history as you see fit. :)
nacker 3 years ago
Justus of Tiberius, another contemporary Jewish historian, also wrote a history of the Jewish people covering this period. Although the work is now lost, we know that it was extant at least until 891 because Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, read it and expressed astonishment that it contained not one reference to Jesus (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33)
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Photius was astonished that it didn't refer to Jesus... because Jesus was a historical person. Josephus also critisized Justus' history.
nacker 3 years ago
Like I said, this is pointless... You say one thing I say another. So good day sir.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Philo Judaeus of Alexandria dates from 30 BCE - 45, Jesus' alleged life span. Among his writings is a history of the Jewish people. It is still available today. Philo was particularly interested in contemporary religious movements and sects of which there were many. Yet he never once mentions Jesus or any of the extraordinary events associated with him in the New Testament.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
and for the 5th time, I've completely refuted your comments, you keep telling me to go back and look but you have not yourself. Why can't you just admit that you are wrong. These sources may refer to a Jesus or a Christ but in no way do they infer that he was an actual living man. If this were the case we would have to accept cyclops and Greek gods as truth because people mention people who worshiped them. All these authors you mention I have dealt with in detail.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
No you haven't. They all treated Jesus as a real historical person connected with other historical people... James his brother... Pontius Pilate... Ananus the High Priest... etc.
nacker 3 years ago
The historians he is talking about (which he fails to mention because he is afraid that you will actually go read them and find out that he is lying) is Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Like I said they do not mention Jesus as a real man, only that some people believed he was some sort of savior. None of these men were Christians... If they knew Jesus and had seen his miracles don't you think they would have converted?
Inqoinf 3 years ago
These "extra sources" he is talking about do not mention a present day Jesus but they say that a certain group of people believe there was a man named Jesus who lived and they believe he was crucified. The problem is none of these texts write about Jesus as a living breathing man, just as a legendary character that a group believes in. People have believed in all kinds of saviors and gods and have written about them... does that mean they are true?
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Actually, having read these sources, I see that they actually treat Jesus as a person who actually existed and interacted with other historical people... like Pilate, James, and his followers.
These sources ABSOLUTELY mention Jesus as a real man. No where do they even infer that he may not have existed... Stop lying.
nacker 3 years ago
then you didn't read them... Josephus is definately talking about a group of people and what they believed. Josephus mentinos that they believed that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of his own religion and yet he never became a Chrisitan... Highly doubtful that he believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Besides it is commonly considered a interpolation. Tacitus mentions a sect who believed in Christus (which isn't necessarily Christ) but never says that he lived and even calls it a superstition.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Pliny mentions that people sang a hymn to Christ but again never mentions Jesus as a real, living breathing man.
Suetonius spells "Christians" correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled "Christus"and Many historians believe Christus to be a fairly common name, not Christ. In any case, he also said that people were doing things in his name, this doesn't prove anything about the historicity of Jesus.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
None of these authors were eye-witnesses and the best they can serve is as hearsay accounts. Sorry you epically fail... you should have actually read them because I just destroyed you. This is my point, the guy in this video says there are 18 other sources... I have trouble finding 4 decent sources. Unless you consider the Gnostic texts but then you have to give them the same credit as Biblical texts and they definitely do not talk about Jesus as being alive but as a spirit being.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Thallus only mentions an eclipse and doesn't say anything about Jesus... This video has, now, been completely debunked.
Like I said, they only concretely prove that people believed in Jesus but not that Jesus actually lived. Again, Legendary Fail.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
I'm glad that you have at least impressed yourself. :)
nacker 3 years ago
Thallus actually does refer to Christ. Read my posts a few months up.
You did say that you had read these sources... right?
nacker 3 years ago
You seem like an angry person.You are correct in one thing-the best sources are eye witness sources... like the gospels.Luke has proven himself to be a most excellent historian.Josephus,Thallus,Suetonius,Tacitus, Talmud,Mara Bar-Serapion,Pliny,Celsus,Phlegon,Lucian of Samosata, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Quadratus.whether you agree with all of these sources or not is not the point.The point is we do have several texts referring to Jesus has historical.We have none treating him as a fabrication.
nacker 3 years ago
You may have read them but you fail to realize that none of these are contemporary sources and some even refer to a future Messiah and not one that has already lived. I thoroughly debunked your claims and the video's claims in earlier posts. None of these mention a living breathing Jesus, only that a group of people believed in a savior figure named Jesus. Simon bar-Kochbah fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies but you don't believe he is the Christ.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
These people referred to in these sources claimed to follow a real man, executed by real authorities, in real places. These sources are written by intelligent people who would be aware of some super-conspiracy between Jews and gentiles to create some miracle worker. The argument just doesn't hold water. If Jesus never existed, Christianity would not have exploded in Jerusalem and traveled as far as Rome and beyond in 30 years. This theory is weak and laughable.
nacker 3 years ago
Then how do you explain every other religion in the world? People follow all kinds of dogma for all kinds of reasons and they all claim them superior to others. There are just to many people willing to believe anything. Islam is a great example. Your theory is what is weak and laughable, in fact, a few of us are having a good laugh right now.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
I can see that you are not here for discussion... you aren't here to understand each other's perspective... just "win." That's fine... I hope it works out well for you. I don't understand the question. Your argument has no foundation. There are multiple historical sources treating Jesus as a historical person. Not one of them takes the man Christians worship and says, "This guy was invented by Christians." Any historian worth a pile of poo would do that. No one did.
nacker 3 years ago
The difference is, if Jesus didn't even exist... if he never walked the Jerusalem landscape, then no one would have believed in him like they did. Give 1st century Jews a little intellectual credit. Study their culture and you'll discover that they would never have worshipped a man. They never would have changed the day of worship to a Sunday. They would never believe that God could be represented as a Son and a Father. Unless Jesus really walked with them and did something to bring them faith
nacker 3 years ago
Sure it does. The fact that he spelled the common term Christians correctly (which looks like it could come from the greek name Christus) and then using the common name instead of the Messiah term is in keeping with ancient history written by contemporaries from different cultures. If they did not believe that Jesus existed, especially these governing authorities dealing with Christians, they would have said so. Something like, "This Jesus never lived and they still follow him." but they dont
nacker 3 years ago
LOL... after laughing for a few min... SHEW... angry how do I come off angry? Now if you said cocky or that I was real "matter of fact" then I might agree. Why do people always thing that others who do not share their opinion, especially on politics or religion, are angry. I see nothing that would have given you that idea.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Not a response.
nacker 3 years ago
Neither does Pliny in any place infer that Jesus wasn't a real, living breathing man. Though He does say that they sing hymns to him "as if to a god" inferring that he was actually a man. If the man didn't even exist you'd think he'd say something about that.
Look a few months up on Suetonius.
nacker 3 years ago
There are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus... not just one... the Testimonium is considered to have been tweeked by Christians, but not invented by them. Then Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ being brought before Ananus. Josephus, like the other secular writers (hence the label secular), may not have believed that Jesus was God incarnate, but they did treat him as a historical person. They all treat the person as real, though they may not practice the faith.
nacker 3 years ago
There are two Josephus passages referring to Jesus. Read a few months up.
nacker 3 years ago
Suppose Jesus did live and die. It doesn't say anything about the ressurection. I mean, how would you know unless you were there. Who are you going to believe. The people that wrote the Bible? Well, if your answer is yes, then I say I didn't kill that fly in my truck. This is a proven point because I just told you. You don't need outside evidence. Just my word. Do you see where this is going?
kashbme 3 years ago
How would you know a building was build by someone if you hadn't seen them build it? Oh, so it's logic that someone created it. Why say that the universe didn't have a creator them?
SalvationHasCome 3 years ago
Building, by nature, are man made. But the universe? This is a different matter. How do you prove a god did it? In fact, I will agree that a higher being did create the universe. It was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his holy appendage).
kashbme 3 years ago
But would you die for the lie that you didn't kill the fly? 10 out of the remaining 11 disciples died b/c they would not stop proclaiming Jesus' resurrection. The other one died banished on an island. I might lie for fame... but not to my death.
nacker 3 years ago
Muslims die everyday for what they believe... does that mean their beliefs are true beliefs? You see how this argument quickly and easily fails. The followers of David Koresh died because they believed he was the returned Messiah, why would they die for a lie?
Inqoinf 3 years ago
These people died because of something they claimed to have seen. Not on the lies fed to them from someone else. They didn't die for an abstract belief that they will enter into heaven as a martyr like militant islamists. They didn't die b/c they were tricked by a cult-leader. They died b/c they saw a man go through the roman flogging and crucifixion processes, die, and then come back to life. These are very different.
nacker 3 years ago
Claimed is the key word. Still doesn't rebuttal my comment. You are asserting that it is true because they didn't die for an abstract belief but you have failed to, thus far, prove that Jesus was a real man, magician, savior, etc. That which can be asserted with out evidence can be dismissed. People died for David Koresh, he was a living breathing man who claimed to be the Messiah, does that mean it was true? Epic fail.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
And how far has his movement gone? Nothing compared to explosion of Christianity. There are multiple historical documents, including the gospels themselves, that speak of a man who lived named Jesus. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that he did not exist. If we only had one source that discussed Jesus and his followers without insinuating that he was made up, then you may have an argument... but there are multiple sources by highly regarded historians.
nacker 3 years ago
Instead, your argument looks like this: Jesus as a historical person is a myth created by Jews, Romans, and other Gentiles... even though they were often killing each other and had nothing to do with each other. They fabricated multiple documents treating him as a real person, and not one shred of evidence that he didn't exist survives today... but we know that he must not have existed, because these 1st Century sources don't resemble modern history like I want them to.
nacker 3 years ago
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL... It took you 3 days to repeat everything you have already said. The answers to your accusations are in the comments I've already posted. Again you epically fail. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. St. Xavior wrote about his travels and never mentions miracles but before he even died there were many miraculous legends about him. So according to your reasoning we have to take any legends written about people as fact. Ridiculous. You, Sir, are silly.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
Right. The burden of proof is with you. We aren't even talking about miracles yet... let's keep our arguments straight here. We are talking about the historical existence of Jesus... not legends developed later about a man who existed. With the evidence at hand, the burden of proof is most definately with you to prove that Jesus didn't exist. Your uncomfort with the sources at hand is not a compelling argument. Repitition is needed since you haven't dealt with the arguments.
nacker 3 years ago
LOLZ, again, I have but you refuse to acknowledge them. These "sources" you claim to be proof I have easily and repeatedly showed you why they are only hearsay and not reliable for proof of a living breathing Jesus. You just refuse to take that as an answer. I was very, very thorough in my first response to you over a week ago. This is why Atheists say Christians are deluded because you refuse anything that doesn't agree with your beliefs. So, keep up this legendary fail.
Inqoinf 3 years ago
We all have our prejudices. The sooner you acknowledge that, the sooner you'll be able to have a real discussion instead of blindly spouting your opinions. If you'll take time to read a few months of comments earlier, you'll see how you are misrepresenting a lot of what these sources actually said.
nacker 3 years ago
The comments I'm referring to are easy to find. If you've clicked on the view all comments link, there will be like 8 or nine comments in a row by me discussing the sources. I guess I shouldn't have assumed that you had read them already.
nacker 3 years ago
kkkkkkkkkk lol, may allah guide all christians and jews to islam amiin
xukun0 3 years ago
Suetonius mentions a "Chrestus" who instigated constant disturbances among the Jews. There was such a fuss over Jesus of Nazareth that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. We could toss this out the window since it is a weird spelling of Christ, and may not refer to Jesus of Nazareth except that the event reported by Suetonius is also reported by Luke in Acts 18:2. This event took place in AD 49.
nacker 3 years ago
This is quite a conspiracy that people are trying to push of as history: Jesus never existed. Quite a conspiracy at the hands of Jews, Romans, and Christians. It is amazing that these people... always at each other's throats at the time of these rightings... would come together to event a carpenter from Nazareth. Accept Jesus or not... but let's be intellectually responsible with our history.
nacker 3 years ago
jassi4010709["there is absolutely no scientific evidence to ever show that the world was darkened for days after the "crucifiction" (and thats something that can be found out if it happened)"]
The problem isn't a lack of evidence... it is a lack of evidence within your worldview. I could say, "there is no scientific evidence that you aren't a human species from another planet gathering information to destroy us." Though I could take your and your family's word for it.
nacker 3 years ago
[jassi4010709["i can not find ANY evidence of the references this guy is talking about."]
This guy has written a lot of books concerning this kind of information. You can start there for the evidence you're looking for.
nacker 3 years ago
its historical referances that im looking at.
theres only 3 sources ,that could ever possible be classed as "historical proof" and none of the three ,even mention jesus.
barely even a sentance from each one.
they merely mention christus, which means messia, and christ was not jesus's last name.
and bareing in mind that appelonius was also a "messiah" at the time of fake jesus, even that one small word of christus, could class as alot more people than jesus.
jassi4010709 3 years ago
You are welcome to your interpretation of the historical data... even if it flies in the face of centuries of historians and archaeologists criticism. Tacitus doesn't just mention, "Christus, the founder of the name," but the, "Christians, who were hated for their enormities." It is obvious he is referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Christianity. Especially since he mentions that Christus was put to death by Pontius Pilate.
nacker 3 years ago
Julius Africanus cites Thallus and argues with Thallus' assumption that the darkness was caused by a solar eclipse, "because a solar eclipse could no take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of hte Paschal full moon that Christ died." Phlegon was also cited in reference to the darkness by Julius as well as by the early church father Origen, and the sixth-century writer Philopon.
nacker 3 years ago
The Babylonian Talmud mentions the hanging of Yeshu (Jesus: a common name back then)on the eve of the Passover. One text even says Yeshu the Nazarene. Hanging is a very common reference to crucifixion both in the Talmud and in Christian tradition, "Cursed is anyone hanged on a tree" is referenced to Jesus. Many other passages refer to Jesus as a bastard son of an adulterous and refer to Mary as one who "played the harlot with carpenters." Yebamoth 49a, Sabb. 104b, Sanh. 106a.
nacker 3 years ago
Josephus mentions Jesus twice... even if you disregard the Testimonium... which most historians will not (they merely do away with the obvious Christians additions)... but even without the Testimonium we find Antiquities XX, 9.1 where he discusses Ananus bringing forth "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James..."
nacker 3 years ago
Suetonius mentions a "Chrestus" who instigated constant disturbances among the Jews. There was such a fuss over Jesus of Nazareth that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. We could toss this out the window since it is a weird spelling of Christ, and may not refer to Jesus of Nazareth except that the event reported by Suetonius is also reported by Luke in Acts 18:2. This event took place in AD 49.
nacker 3 years ago
If Jesus never existed, I'm pretty sure that these references, especially those from the Talmud and from Josephus, would go a little more like this: **And these Christians followed a man, Christus, who they say performed miracles and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. But the Jews claim this man never existed. Indeed they seem to have made this man up out of thin air. What a silly people."
But they go nothing like that do they... unless they were all in on this conspiracy!!!
nacker 3 years ago
And what a conspiracy!!! that people are trying to push of as history: Jesus never existed. Quite a conspiracy at the hands of Jews, Romans, and Christians. It is amazing that these people... always at each other's throats at the time of these rightings... would collaborate to event a carpenter from Nazareth. Accept Jesus or not... but let's be intellectually responsible with our history.
nacker 3 years ago
wow... I should be intellectually responsible with my spelling...
rightings = writings
event = invent
nacker 3 years ago
These references could represent hostile witness to the Christian claim of the virgin birth.
nacker 3 years ago