Three questions: Who made Him up? Why did they do it? How did they convince so many people He lived, let alone is the Son of God? There are more books written about Jesus than anyone in the history of the world. The Western world changed the way we count years because of Him (BC-AD). Countless lives have been changed because of Him (including my own). Over 3/4 of the world today believes He was God or a prophet of God. No credible historian today in the world denies the existence of Jesus of Nazareth... [video=youtube;9KCEMyApdDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KCEMyApdDg[/video]
Yes, that's true, because we don't really have any historical evidence of Jesus. History is silent on all the big events that supposedly happened in his life. Dozens of books were written on him many years after his supposed death. The "gospels" were not canonized till hundreds of years after the fact.
Over a billion people believe Muhammad ascended into heaven, do you? Why do so many people believe it? Why would Muhammad have made up the Quran? I see this line pandered about often. But it's not true, many historians have pointed out the lack of evidence for Jesus. It's true that some are hesitant to say he didn't exist, but I'd venture to say they are ones who haven't really analyzed the evidence throughly, or have cultural bias.
Do you know that Mohammad was supposed to be a prophet? Did you also know that the Muslims believe in Jesus Christ (They think he is a prophet like Mohammad) and our Hebrew God? We share the same belief of the same God. The gray area in between is just different. Also, the Muslims were a faith that was established after the Christian Faith. So it's much easier to convince thousands or even millions of people, when an already established religion is in place. Just sayin'
Here is some historical and Archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ Just an FYI... I can understand the ones that don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but there are documentation by Roman's that explain his crucifixion and some physical evidence that there was a Jesus.
Wrong, Muhammad was said to have died as a man then was escorted to heaven by the angel Gabriel in spirit after his death, an event unseen. It was Jesus who was said to have bodily ascended into heaven before His crucifixion because He begged Allah not to die on the cross, where a "look-alike" took His place and fooled people into thinking it was Jesus (which ironically opens another huge can of questions). Which no one saw but the Qur'an claims to have happened. I own two Qur'ans. I have no doubt the Qur'an is an inspired text, who or what it was inspired by is a different story. The Qur'an contradicts the Bible in numerous places and has major differences in doctrine. Reading the Qur'an it seems obvious it was meant to skew the gospel of Jesus Christ. Can you name them or provide any evidence of this? I provided a link where even non-believers said it's "ignorance" to claim that Jesus never existed. This is not true. All the Gospels were completed by around AD 90, roughly 60 yeas after Jesus' death. There is a possibility it might even be earlier than that. There are more than 6,000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts of the New Testament that have been discovered, by far the most of any document in ancient history. (The next closest I believe is about a dozen)
josephus made only 2 references to a jesus, not several, and i assume you are aware of the controversy surrounding them. if not you should research it. also there is now a consensus among experts that the ossuary enscription is a forgery and the owner is on trail for fraud involving charges relating to this and many other supposed biblical relics that are now known to be faked. the ossuary doesn't really help your case : ) there is documentation by romans that there were christians. there is no roman documentation for jesus. there is no physical evidence for jesus. i can understand if you want to make some kind of cultural/anthropological argument that it's more likely than not that the man jesus existed, but nothing anyone objective would call proof exists.
he said cannonized, not written. they were not singled out from among all the other similar writings for inclusion in the bible until hundreds of years later.
Actually no... There was "Roman documentation" of a historical "Christ" that was ordered by Pilate to be executed. Another historian concluding there was a crucifixion of Christ. Another person of the time with documentation And just so you know, As you see, you ask us to have an open mind, yet you won't have one yourself. Like I've said before. The argument that Jesus is not the Son of God can be argued. There should be no argument Jesus did not exist.
none of that qualifies as historical documention of jesus. at best, when there's even a chance of being legitimate, it only documents followers of jesus. nice if overly brief summary - http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id13.html
http://www.thenazareneway.com/dead_sea_scrolls.htm This was actual "carbon dating" of the "dead Sea Scrolls" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls Important texts include the Isaiah (discovered in 1947), a Commentary on the Habakkuk (1947), the so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold and weapons, and the earliest version of the Damascus Document. So if the "New Testament"; which explains "Jesus"; wouldn't this also be considered "documentation"?!?!
even if accurate it just documents that there were christians in the first century, again which nobody is disputing.
As an aside, I have a question for you: Was your Dad, like, a hardcore fundamentalist who totally burned you out on Jesus? Just curious.
I think what you might not take into consideration is the wild fire spread of "Christianity" that existed during the Roman times. The times before the Romans actually embraced "Christianity". And being the power they were; what would you think that juggernaut empire would do? Wouldn't you think they would try and do everything in their power to destroy all Christian documentation, relics, writings of Christ ever existing? And do you honestly believe that this "wide spread" phenomenon would have thousands of people willing to die for their beliefs; if they didn't think this was true? The Roman empire had an epidemic. The people of Rome were converting to a "Faith" that was against all the beliefs of Rome. It was poison that they had to get rid of. Why do you think they invaded Jerusalem and killed everyone it it, and burned everything to the ground? They wanted to be rid of Christianity once and for all.
And I find it amazing that "Christianity" survived without a King, Emperor or United Nation to back up the Faith. Wouldn't you think that there was some supernatural force, allowing for this "Faith" to survive the constant hunting, destroying of nations, assassinations, murders, and fear? And don't bring up the Muslim faith. They had kings, countries and became one of the most powerful nations backing up their religion. Christianity had no one, but "The People whom believed" and had to worship "underground" for many centuries before it became an adopted Religion.
for those not of the Christian faith....what would it mean to you if there was "acceptable, non-controvertible" evidence that a man known as Jesus existed at the time the Bible says he did, saying the things he said? Something like a census report or letters or whatever? You'd still not believe he was the Divine Son of God Sent For Salvation of the World, right? I mean, if you believe the books of Moses, God walked with them during the Exodus as a pillar of fire at night and a pillar of smoke during the day, and rained down food from Heaven for them, but most of them didn't believe that He was God and didn't believe He would do what He said he would. I'm always curious about people who want "proof" for faith--I understand the intention behind it, but I wonder if it really would change anything.
