09 Dec '05 23:18>
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
Originally posted by checkbaiterThese have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
Originally posted by checkbaiterI think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just continue to "kick against the goads."
These have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
Originally posted by no1marauder"These have all been discussed before ... "
These have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis isn't true, Ivanhoe. There are people who do not find the evidence compelling.
I think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.
Thanks for the link.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "There are people who do not find the evidence compelling."
This isn't true, Ivanhoe. There are people who do not find the evidence compelling.
I find the evidence compelling, but not totally conclusive. But, part of that is directly
related to how much less important Jesus was in the eyes of the government and His
contemporaries than the Gospels suggest.
Anyway, when you say 'Jesus Christ,' it's like you ...[text shortened]... name. It was
a title, and I'm sure none of the secular records would record that.
Nemesio
Do you prefer "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Jesus Christ" ?[/b]Originally posted by ivanhoe
Originally posted by HalitoseShould have read further down the thread, lol.
Any ideas, David C? I'm sure you disagree...