I'm not saying your ignorant. Just tripping that you would assume those stories were credible; when there was no supported documentation that supports the timeline and claim:
I don't believe this to be the case, please provide some proof. I know that we have busts of Caesar from 2 years after his death. We have accounts from contemporary witnesses to Caesar and a plethora of near contemporary witnesses. I think you were fed a line of bull and you bit too easily.
Of course!!!! There is a YouTube clip from one of the leading historians, in a radio show with an atheist. Let me find it.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AQYp8J13x8wM5XmbA&sig2=VYyNzm00xVJbShA8MkGJLQ I am on my phone; so would you mind clicking the link and posting it here? I can only copy the google search cause it automatically directs me to the YouTube ap.
You can doubt that there was a Jesus that is God of the flesh; but there is no doubt that there was a Jesus that was claimed as the messiah; that lived around that era and was crucified.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case Or this from Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I know I won't convince you no matter how many youtube videos, websites, and books I recommend so I won't try. Peace be with you.
Right back at you. I suspect jesus himself could manifest in front of you and you will still not believe. And peace also with you.
Honestly I would probably question evolution before I would question Jesus being real. Historical proof of Jesus Jesus Mentioned in old Text For those who believe Darwinism is the answer to refute the Bible should check this out.National Academy of Sciences refuted Not trying to argue just open up minds. Cant make anybody believe, and hope this may help someone.
I think it's probable a man Jesus existed and at least in part was incorporated into NT stories, although there really is no way to be certain so anyone who claims certainty either way (as in "no doubt") is full of it. However the comparison to Caesar is just silly propaganda. There are numerous contemporaneous (during his lifetime) extant records of and references to Julius Caesar, including his own writings, statues, even contemporaneous coins with his image. On the other hand there are zero contemporaneous records of the existence of Jesus, or even soon after his death. Everything we have is from decades if not centuries after the fact, which is why his existence is debatable. In any case there is comparison to Caesar.
Unfortunately you are missing the historian accounts from the letters of Paul. Paul was around only years after jesus was crucified. And furthermore; there is no refuting Caesar existed because we use the same type of historical evidence as we would for anyone else in his time period. And as the scholar said; there is more evidence about Jesus existing than anyone else in his time period. I only use Caesar as a reference of "if you believe Caesar existed; then you have to adopt Jesus existed.
you should read up on the synoptic problem. there are almost no scholars who are taken seriously any more who would say the gospels (with the possible exception of Mark) represent individual eyewitness accounts of Jesus, or were even authored by their namesakes. any website that makes this claim is immediately suspect as propaganda rather than serious study. also all the quotes referenced are either of dubious origin, or simply represent the trivial acknowledgment that a legend of Jesus existed decades after his death. Darwinism/evolution does not make any specific claims about the origin of life (abiogenesis).
Paul didn't claim to be a contemporaneous witness obviously. He's irrelevant. Clearly whether Jesus existed or not there would have had to be a legend developing around the time of Paul. I don't think anyone disputes that. you're not understanding the difference.
I havent had a chance to watch yet, hut here it is. [video]http://youtu.be/WUQMJR2BP1w[/video] Sorry, I cant get it to embed.
What! How can you doubt the existence of the main man? He has every bit as good a credentials as CHRISNA or Krishna if you prefer. Both could walk on water, preform miracles, come to us via immaculate conception, suffer crucification and resurrection. Seeking mortal evidence of such a man seems like you can't quite grasp the significance of his being or appreciate his pay scale.
I don't find this terribly compelling. There were a number of self-described messiahs wandering around back then. They had all kinds of schticks. It may be that his just happened to work, while all the guys who said they were Larry Awesomeballs and had conquered Jupiter and fucked all the bitches in Atlantis didn't. Maybe Jesus' schtick worked BECAUSE he wasn't all glory-hoggy. Imagine you are a strand of spaghetti, and you along with all the other spaghetti in the bowl claim that you are made of super glue. All the strands are licking themselves to appear more shiny. You, meanwhile, say fuck that and just kind of lay there. Somebody picks up the bowl and hurls it at a wall. You just happen to stick while all the other spaghetti strands fall off (where my dog Violet devours them in a homicidal frenzy.) That doesn't mean you are made of superglue. It just means there was a shitload of spaghetti, and one of you was bound to stick. Maybe you stuck because you were a little drier than the rest. Or maybe you were just having a good noodle day.
