Originally posted by r99pawn77Welcome to Red Hot Pawn.
A myth has been circulating for some time that there is no proof of Christ's existence. That is not true. There are many references from original source documents from the era (mostly Roman) which indeed reference Christ and the first Christians.
The myth seemed to evolve out of the history written by Josephus who barely mentioned the early Christians re named Christians.
5) The Christians suffered under Nero and they were hated by others.
Originally posted by r99pawn77I have seen akeptics attack this evidence also. They might suggest for example, that "Christus" was probably not Jesus of Nazareth.
is that a threat? LOL!
Originally posted by r99pawn77They way people argue against this reminds me of Holocaust deniers....
Josephus on Jesus:
article says that most scholars accept the reference as valid and not manufactured.
and, of course, with all the other evidence from a variety of sources...
it does not seem fabricated...
yeah, there really were a group of folks who split off from Judaism and yeah, they were r ...[text shortened]... s, it really happened.
They way people argue against this reminds me of Holocaust deniers....
Originally posted by Agerg=============================
Meh!...are you asking us to believe that there existed a mortal human with no more special powers or ties with the supernatural than I, who said wise things 2000 years ago and happened to be called Jesus?
Or are you asking us to believe in magic twinkle dust Jesus who is the son of God, walks on water and has a desperate longing to save you from eternal pe ...[text shortened]... n? (who presumably can't be killed by omnipotent omnibenevolent God)
I suspect the latter
Originally posted by r99pawn77Well, what constitutes 'proof'? Lets rather talk about the strength of the evidence.
A myth has been circulating for some time that there is no proof of Christ's existence. That is not true.
Originally posted by jaywillWe're asking you to continue making a fool of yourself so some real truth seekers can see how lame skeptics can really be.
Or are you asking us to believe in magic twinkle dust Jesus ....
I suppose you feel this phrase is representative of the New Testament.
"Once upon a time there was a magic twinkle dust Jesus ..."
No, we are not asking you to believe in "a magic twinkle dust Jesus". ...[text shortened]... king a fool of yourself so some real truth seekers can see how lame skeptics can really be.[/b]
Originally posted by Proper Knob===================================
[b]We're asking you to continue making a fool of yourself so some real truth seekers can see how lame skeptics can really be.
Gimme a break. You're not interested in the truth, to quote the famous film line -
Truth??.......You want the truth??..........You can't handle the truth!!!!!
All your interested in is propping up your own dogma, based on the writings of some unknown Bronze Age desert tribesman.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI'll change a vowel, but it still doesn't alter my point.
All your interested in is propping up your own dogma, based on the writings of some unknown Bronze Age desert tribesman.
There were 40 different writers involved over 1600 years in the writing of the Bible.
Open mouth, change feet.[/b]
Originally posted by clearlightActually there is some who doubt that he existed at all.
No one doubts there was some guy called jesus or whatever alive at the time but so what? What proof is there that this man died and rose again on the third day and that he died for our sins so we could be saved and that he was the son of God? None whatsoever. And there never will be.