Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the first is an opinion, the second is pretty stupid.
it basically is equivalent to "let's ignore einstein's accomplishments and his intelligence. once you strip away that, his life was totally forgettable. followed by nothing". it ignores the main characteristics of an important figure.
christians believe jesus was the son of god and provided ho ...[text shortened]... did) and after him nothing happened(except to forever change the course of humanity)".
From the "stupid" article regarding the question did Jesus exist:
Of course it all comes down to the evidence. Since most of what we think we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, let’s start there.
If the crucifixion took place, it would have been in about 29CE. The four gospels were written no earlier than the period 70 to 90CE and were based on stories previously published using only a combination of the tongue and memory: a classic case of hearsay upon hearsay.
But if we could trust the authors’ ability to relay only hearsay which came from trustworthy sources, perhaps this wouldn’t matter so much. Yet we know virtually nothing about the authors. In fact, since the original texts were anonymous, scholars agree that the gospels probably weren’t written by those with the names attributed to them. What’s more, we know that the church inserted material into the gospels even centuries later. For instance the original gospel of Mark – perhaps significantly – omitted any reference to the resurrection, but ended with Jesus’ death.
And the gospels disagree with each other about several matters including the genealogies and Peter’s denial of Jesus. As for factual errors, they are so easy to find that I will mention just two.
First, the gospel writers referred to many prophecies which Jesus supposedly fulfilled. The only problem is that a number of the prophecies hadn’t been made in the first place (Luke 18:31-32, John 2:23, 5:46, 19:36, Mark 8:28, Matthew 2:23).
And how about this? Luke explains that the reason why Jesus was born in Bethlehem was because Joseph and Mary had to return to Joseph’s place of birth. This was due to a decree issued by Emperor Augustus for a census to be taken throughout the Roman world for tax purposes while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2). Matthew 2 explains that this was while Herod was king. Yet Syria didn’t have a governor called Quirinius when Herod was king. And despite the best endeavours of archeologists and historians, it has proved impossible to find a trace of an imperial census during that period. There was a local one a few years later, but that didn’t require the population to return to their places of birth.
The rest of the New Testament doesn’t provide any evidence for Jesus’ existence, either. The letters which were supposedly written by the disciples Peter and John suffer from the usual problems of forgery, later interpolation and questioned identity. And the authors of the other epistles, including Paul, didn’t claim that they had ever met Jesus.
In fact, it is difficult to know which is the more baffling: the lack of virtually any historical evidence that Jesus ever lived or the apparent readiness of most people to take his existence for granted nevertheless.
Luke (23:44) tells us that during the crucifixion, “It was about the sixth hour and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.” Yet no contemporary writer considered the daytime shrouding of the planet in blackness worth even a passing reference – not even Pliny the Elder or Seneca even though they lived in the right period and they wrote about much lesser events such as eclipses.
And why did no writer consider Herod’s slaying of all the babies of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16) to be important enough to bother mentioning?
The gospels refer to Jesus’ fame and the multitudes that he drew (Luke 5:15, 19:47, 21:15-23, 23:23, 26:13). Yet, although the religious philosopher Philo and the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias both lived at the right time, neither of them mentioned him among their voluminous writings. Had Jesus’ fame not reached them?
We know that the Romans were meticulous in their documentation. Yet they have no record of Jesus or his crucifixion.
So is there any evidence that Jesus existed?