Reply With Quote
bla bla bla, none of that talks about Jesus.
No one doubts the existance of hebrew slaves in Egypt. That is pretty well do ented.
Wandering around, plages and ... is another story.
For the pictures and tables missing from this article go to http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm
I could've just posted the website but doubt anyone would've actually gone to see the overwhelming amount of research
bla bla bla, none of that talks about Jesus.
No one doubts the existance of hebrew slaves in Egypt. That is pretty well do ented.
Wandering around, plages and ... is another story.
What is a logical fallacy?
Can you tell me what one is, or how to tell if I see one?
Nice work, I also have plenty of sources but the posters on here will pass it off as hearsay and try to discredit it. No use in trying to convince someone who is so against a certain belief or truth.
Does the verifiable truth of one thing in the bible mean that everything in the bible is automatically true?
Idiot number 1 right on cue
Interesting thread
No, actually, they don't [almost all believe Jesus existed]
There is quite a bit that is problematic in that. It is far from "almost all".
A good summation of what I have read:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462...makes-his-caseSo, did Jesus really exist? With his new book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, historian and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, wanted to provide solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
"I wanted to approach this question as an historian to see whether that's right or not," Ehrman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.
The answer is straightforward and widely accepted among scholars of all faiths, but Ehrman says there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.
"It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are," Ehrman says. "Historically, they've been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed," he says.
Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.
This first bit is emblematic, as the guy putting forth the existance of Jesus acknowledges the existence of people who put forth the argument that he didn't. The OP is one such example but there are others.
The primary arguement is that there are no contemporary accounts DURING the supposed lifetime of Jesus of Jesus himself.
The first account outside of the bible is of a guy who talks about Jesus 30-40 years after his death.
Many people trying to make the case point to this guy, but ignore the parts of his account that contradict the bible, i.e. Jesus had a wife and kids. Have to re-research the guys name.
The big problem the historians who aren't buying the "jesus existed" assertion is that there are no real contemporary account of his life while he was alive.
If someone was walking on water and doing all the feeding of the masses stuff, even in the roman world, this kind of thing would be written about at the time.
Everythign we know about Haysoos is written long after his supposed death.
Easy enough to make up after everyone who might have first hand knowledge has croaked.
I confess to Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters.....
Prove that any other ancient figure existed. Just because someone wrote it down it has to be true, right? Why do you believe anything in ancient text? Were you there when they were being written? Have you seen any of these people in real life? Do you have a time machine? No. You don't. You believe because you have faith. Simple as that.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jesu...sm=93&ie=UTF-8
IT doesn't take much of a search on google to find people skeptical of Jesus' existance.
One might be able to debate such a question, but the issue as to whether "almost all" historians believe he existed, is very easily rebutted.
And both Jerusalem and Israel were destroyed in A.D 70, who's to say the Romans didn't destroy any evidence of him? Why would they keep it when they were so against him?
So in other words you believe because you're a scared idiot with no proof but you have "faith," which is belief with no evidence. Okay then
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
I don't have to be at the time and place of a murder to believe someone was killed. Things that happen in the past leave evidence of their passing.
It does not take faith to NOT believe something.
I don't take it on faith that pink unicorns don't exist. I simply don't have any good evidence that they DO exist. That is not faith, that is the opposite of faith, that is skepticism.
I believe the emporers of rome lived because I have outside accounts of what they did and the corroberation of those events generally described.
If you can show me the body of Jesus, or for that matter some evidence of his tomb, or some account that backs up the mircales/deeds of Jesus written at the time it supposedly happened, I would love to see it.
"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]So in other words you believe because you're a scared idiot with no proof but you have "faith," which is belief with no evidence. Okay then
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2]The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.[10][11]"
Church mother er. So sit down and shut the up.
Romans were not the only people capable of writing at the time, and nor were they omnipotent.
If some one really had turned water into wine, or fed mul udes, even back then that would get out in accounts of travelers.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I'm not even asking for that. Show me anything that he lived. I call bull .
Show me the body of any Roman Emperor. You really are an idiot.
Just admit you want to keep blindly believing in fairy tales, B
Written circa 115 AD.
Not quite during Chirst's life is it?
Not even shortly after.
That is five generations after Christ is supposed to have lived. Anyon with direct knowedge would have been dead.
All that does is prove my point for me.
If Jesus was that miraculous and special why would there not be any account while he was alive and doing all these things? The Romans were writing stuff down tht was happenign at the time.
I can. They know where some of them have been buried.
There are independent historians that talk about the emporers that had direct, first hand knowledge.
You can't say the same for Jesus.
Sorry. Get as mad and pissy with me as you like, but you can't magic up writings that don't exist.
You're a ing dumbass, why would they keep an account of someone they hated and sentenced to death? Someone who challenged their Empire and ruling? And Tacitus is a reliable roman historian.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
