historicity of jesus

[Bud Bundy]

Why would Roman officials write about anything that happened in a Jewish cult in the 1st Century?
​

A man coming back to life would peak anyones curiosity during any time. unless you believe jesus never came back to life but then chirsitanty loses alot of its clout.

No, that's just proof that he didn't believe Jesus did NOT exist or didn't care enough to write about him.

no it does not. Hell there is no proof that uncle and nephew ever had a conversation about christians much less jesus so at that we are at an impass.

Just because he doesn't mention him doesn't mean he never heard of him. He doesn't mention Christians, either, but we know they existed.

He might of heard of chirstians but my point is that he would have written about a man coming back to life.

Now back to my point can you name a historian from the time that Jesus was around who even mentions him. Pliny the elder sure does not and pliny the younger does not even talk about so explain to me him not even mentioning that jesus was real person is proof of his existence?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

A man coming back to life would peak anyones curiosity during any time. unless you believe jesus never came back to life but then chirsitanty loses alot of its clout.

No, it wouldn't. To illustrate this point, name 3 people who have come back to life without using Google or the Bible in the last 2,000 years. I'll wait.

no it does not. Hell there is no proof that uncle and nephew ever had a conversation about christians much less jesus so at that we are at an impass.

You are at an impasse. We know Christians existed at the time. They didn't just appear overnight.

He might of heard of chirstians but my point is that he would have written about a man coming back to life.

Why would he write about something he wasn't interested in?

Now back to my point can you name a historian from the time that Jesus was around who even mentions him.

Can you name a historian from the time that Emperor Nero was around who even mentions him?

This is why your point is moot.
​

 

[Bud Bundy]

No, it wouldn't. To illustrate this point, name 3 people who have come back to life without using Google or the Bible in the last 2,000 years. I'll wait.

i do not believe resurrection is possible.



You are at an impasse. We know Christians existed at the time. They didn't just appear overnight.

I am not refuting the exsitance of christians but jesus


Why would he write about something he wasn't interested in?
motherfukker you brought him up.


Can you name a historian from the time that Emperor Nero was around who even mentions him?​

and now you bring up nero who we know does not have anything first hand written about him but you know how we know he exists

all made during his time while he was alive

you know what i am done.
you play this game every time and i have answered all your questions and because you can not answer mine you bring up more questions that have nothing to do with what i asked.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

i do not believe resurrection is possible.

There is no evidence that it is impossible. I just doubt it happens. Beliefs require evidence.

I am not refuting the exsitance of christians but jesus

Where is your evidence to refute Jesus' existence?

motherfukker you brought him up.

You decided to keep talking about him.

and now you bring up nero who we know does not have anything first hand written about him

THAT is why when an historian is born is an invalid objection to his material. Why are you asking for more proof than that required to establish the historicity of an Emperor of Rome?

because you can not answer mine you bring up more questions that have nothing to do with what i asked.

I have answered every question you asked and made you think about how ignorant your last question was. It won't stop others from making the same mistake, but one can hope. As far as asking questions that have nothing to do with what is asked, you might wanna go back a few posts to see how YOU started it.
​

 

[Dave24]

A psychologist view of Jesus. In Summary, if he existed he was insane. Which would make sense




Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Psychological Make-up of Jesus

Subbed, good stuff

@Drinky Crow

@010101

@Ghost Utmost


Read the post I quoted, the link doesn't work for the article

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Interestingly, Bart Ehrman, one of the most famous anti-Christian skeptics in Biblical studies, wrote an entire book about why Jesus really existed cause he was tired of conspiracy theorists making anti-Christian scholars look bad.

Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth|Paperback

In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a...

www.barnesandnoble.com

This guy can't stand Christianity and is constantly trying to discredit the Bible and fundamentalism, but he still thinks the evidence points strongly towards Jesus's reality.

In Biblical studies and historical studies in general, the consensus that Jesus existed is overwhelming. "Jesus Mythists" are a fringe mostly self-published or working for non-accredited colleges, and their pet theories all contradict each other.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I’ll go so far to say He was an annoying cult leader, who had a story that was hyped up 60 to 300 years after his death