Whatever. I think this thread probably leaves few in any real doubt to your motivations anymore, As such its probably not necessary from my point of view to deal with you further.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then post links; if you have incontrovertible evidence for a human Jesus and extrabiblical, contemporary documentation of this person I and every other person who has ever lived would love to see it...as I said before, until you argue something, I don't need to address anything you have said...
In other words you have no point to make and cannot counter any of the arguments...my motivations are transparent; I want to know if we have good evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth; I haven't found any and you claim to have some, which you refuse to post...hmm...Whatever. I think this thread probably leaves few in any real doubt to your motivations anymore, As such its probably not necessary from my point of view to deal with you further.
In other words you have no point to make and cannot counter any of the arguments...
you claim to have some, which you refuse to post...hmm...
2000 yrs of Christianity is pretty good evidence that Christ lived.
I severely doubt that Buddha existed as biographies if you want to call them that were written centuries after the fact and all we have are magic stories about the guy. Mohammed likely existed...we have more direct evidence for him...2000 yrs of Christianity is pretty good evidence that Christ lived. no one doubts the existence of Buddha or Mohammed, so why are you doubting Jesus?
A hoax? Not a hoax but a mythic divine Christ who likely never existed as a human being. What is so strange about that? Religions existed for thousands of years based on that principle, why not Christianity? Mithraism was based on that principle and could have won over Christianity in late antiquity...they were neck and neck...no, not a hoax but all critical scholarship agrees that the NT Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of anything and are almost entirely literature...listen to Bart Ehrman talk about how stories were added and removed from the Gospels through copiests...for example...I agree, it's hard to believe that so many are following a 2000 year old hoax. Just doesn't make sense. Seems to me most skeptics can only produce some sort of doubt in which to draw conclusions.
Billy <><
Once again, probabilites; it is improbable that there was a human Jesus; no one can prove it one way or otherwise decisively...You haven't countered any of our arguments, other than by saying; the Bible's nonsense, "experience" of Jesus is just emotion, miracles did not happen and because Jesus didn't write a book, we cannot believe he existed.
That doesn't mean we haven't any, it just means we are fed up with arguing with someone who's starting point seems to be; Jesus doesn't exist, and if you say otherwise, I'll dismiss it because I don't believe. Your position isn't even that consistent. First you say you have lost your faith and are happier without it. Then you praise the authors of websites who have "proved" that Jesus did not exist at all. Then you say that you are an agnostic about the existence of Jesus - meaning you don't know - and scholars do think that he existed, they just don't accept that he was God and performed miracles. Many people don't believe that Jesus was who he said he was; that is completely different from saying that he never existed, everyone is lying when they say otherwise, and the whole of Christianity is built on a delusion or someone's subjective emotions, which they somehow seem to have passed on to people who were born hundreds of years after them.
You don't know that Jesus didn't exist; you have lost your belief. You said so yourself.
Anyeoung Haseyo....I think I'm too* young to speak to this lol.
I will be back after graduating from university
You are using your limited reasoning abilities to understand an unlimited entity. As it is said, lack of evidence is not evidence that it doesn't exist. What you and other humans have been able to glean from ancient history is limited to what has been discovered so far.If I only knew what you were talking about...care to elucidate?
Once again, probabilites; it is improbable that there was a human Jesus; no one can prove it one way or otherwise decisively..
Oh, I do want to discuss; in particular I want evidence for the existence of the human Jesus of Nazareth that isn't anecdotal...
Oh, I do want to discuss; in particular I want evidence for the existence of the human Jesus of Nazareth that isn't anecdotal...
A hoax? Not a hoax but a mythic divine Christ who likely never existed as a human being. What is so strange about that? Religions existed for thousands of years based on that principle, why not Christianity? Mithraism was based on that principle and could have won over Christianity in late antiquity...they were neck and neck...no, not a hoax but all critical scholarship agrees that the NT Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of anything and are almost entirely literature...listen to Bart Ehrman talk about how stories were added and removed from the Gospels through copiests...for example...
Good questions Billy...Not wishing to get into a discussion about the finer points of the word ‘hoax’ but if copyist added and removed stories, taking into account that they had an agenda, then wouldn’t that be participating or perpetuating a hoax? I haven’t read Mr. Ehrman but I have read others that probably have like opinions and to be honest, I think that they make some pretty good points. But on the other hand just because there may have been some historical, allegorical, or literary complexities, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus was a myth. But lets say for a minute that Jesus came only in spirit and was, as some have suggested, only raised in the hearts of believers, which in turn could have possibly generated the myth idea. Would your opinion about Him change? Would you even be open to an idea like that? And I’m curious about something, lets say for instance that Jesus came back and introduced Himself to you. How would you know if it was really Him? What proof would you ask for?
Billy <><
Mark, the 60's? How about 70 CE at the earliest...1. John did not rely on Mark.
2. The Testimonium has been tampered with but it has an authentic nucleus. There is also Antiquities 20.9.1
3. Tacitus has not been tampered with.
4. Mark was written in the 60s CE
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?