do you not see how arbitrary your particluar superstition is? if you are going to believe things without evidence, how do you know when to stop? if transubstantiation is ok, why not alien monkeys? if the resurrection is ok, why not bigfoot? why not allah and jim jones? correct the last sentence saved you from not making any sense at all. yes, you are right. your religion is EXACTLY a fictitious fairy tale. you are getting closer to understanding. i genuinely appreciate the effort. concentrate on understanding why there is no correlation between something being imaginary and it having an influence on society.
This is hotly disputed by many and a quick google search will bring up a ton of contrary evidence. Many challenege Josephus; his credibility has been questioned for centuries. Most think he was accurate about many things and inacurrate about others. Moreover he couldn't have been to all of the places reported upon. He worked from sources, some of them quite good and others quite bad. This is a well-balanced link on the subject.The Credibility of Josephus Exactly. They which suffer from the same problem as all of the other early references to Jesus. They were written 100-300 years after the fact and used early Christian documents (also not contemporary) as sources. No document mentioning Jesus exists that is contemporary with his time. Many historical documents written in the 100-300AD era used the gospels and other early Christian texts as source material and can not as such be independent evidence of Jesus. Exactly. Years later by people not contemporary with Jesus. :insane: Tacitus was born at least 23 years after Jesus died. I don't think you understand what contemporary means. Not because you say so. The existence of Jesus is possible, there is no reason he couldn't have existed. Indeed, Yeshua is the most common name in Judaism, so many men named Jesus have always existed. The existence of Jesus is suggested by many ancient texts. Just recognize that these are not historical facts. It does not mean that facts couldn't come to light. Until a 1961 there was no evidence Pontius Pilate existed, but a single stone inscription accurately dated to 26-37 AD has provided evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not discovered until 1947-1956 and date as late as AD 70. Perhaps more lay undiscovered. All it takes is one . . . authenticated . . . artifact.
I didn't say anything about that dude. Your rebuttal has nothing to do with my point. What are you trying to say? Not the point. I was challenging your notion that the gospels were not written until the 4th century. Anyone who asserts this is demonstrably wrong. The gospels were in a form we could recognize by the end of the Apostolic age just before the turn of the 2nd century. Who were documenting the teachings of those who were contemporaries. . I don't think you understand that you said: He was indeed very close to being a contemporary. So close that he lived and wrote while the dudes that hung out with Jesus were wandering around proclaiming the good news. That's 1 generation quote. Yes. So possible that every credible historian regards the existence of Jesus as Nazareth as fact.
Uhh . . . no, actually . . . No. Both are mythological, which would make them imaginary (imaginary -- adj. Having existence only in the imagination; unreal.) and immaterial (immaterial -- adj; of no real importance) I have no idea what the catholic church teaches. I am just responding to comments that you make. I don't try to hold you to ridiculous standards of faith. I accept that you have faith in all of this and I undeerstand why. I'm just astonished that you don't seem to understand that when you throw around terms like facts, truth, historical evidence, etc, then they must be subject to scrutiny. Stop taking it as a challenge to your faith. It is a challenge only to your careless rhetoric. It reveals that you are narrow of vision, my friend. And no less obstinate.
As late as the 4th century. My principle point was that no contemporary records exist, nor records from contemporaries of Jesus. Every credible historian? I'd love to see you document that. What you'll find is that it depends on whether one is describing the historical Jesus or the Christ of the Gospels. Bible scholars and ancient historians who used much less stringent evidence than modern historians tend to believe that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. But many, many modern historians have grave doubts and have published extensively.
I will be the first to admit that I do have a problem with verbalizing my thoughts in small snippets and many times will miss my point. This is me acknowledging my own faults. That said, I think we are having a disconnect in that you are assuming that I don’t understand and know the historical, societal, cultural significance of these individuals and events. This isn’t the case. I fully understand the historical value and significance that Christianity, Muslim, Buddhist, Greek Mythology, etc have. I understand that entire societies and cultures have been formed around these core beliefs. The importance that they share is that all of them acknowledge some sort of supreme entity or beings created or influenced the creation of everything. I know that just because something has historical importance doesn’t mean they existed, ie Mother Goose fairytales. Although they have historical significance in that our children read them therefore they are imbedded in our society, but entire cultures are not built around the beliefs that these stories play any significance to our existence. With the exception of Disney Land/World where there are entire areas dedicated to these fairytales, but, to my knowledge there aren’t entire cultures surrounding these stories. My contention is that your philosophy is every bit as flawed as those who share the beliefs of religious backings. That, even though you won’t admit it, by your own acknowledgement that these persons or events play a significant role in the history of mankind, and the cultural structure, that you are accepting their importance. That by accepting this you are admitting your own flaws in your beliefs. That by being every bit as flawed as those who have a religious core belief system, who you call stupid, your belief system is every bit as stupid. Although I am not saying that your belief system is stupid, it is your right to have and express your philosophy, but that your philosophy is no more right than that of religion. I hope that I have made my point clear, if not, than as I stated before I do have a problem sometimes verbalizing my thoughts in small snippets, will just leave it alone and let others try to debate what I am not. Again I am not trying to convince you that I am right or that you are wrong, just that both philosophies are equally flawed, and that neither are really stupid.
Fair enough, but what you must understand is that we do have 1st and 2nd generation accounts, and that is more than we can say about most things in the classical world. Well it is pretty well documented by many others. There are a few dissenters like GA Wells, Gandy and Price, but the existence of dissent does not undermine the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was an historical figure. Of the bunch mentioned in your quote are a German Professor and some popular writers. None of those guys are very highly regarded as historians, and few have any formal training. None of their work has had any impact on scholarly debate. I think you are overblowing the dissent. Those who question the historical existence or only noteworthy because they are so few. To try and chracterize the mythical Jesus views as anything but fringe is to ignore the overwhelming consensus of historians and biblcal scholars. To finish the section of Wikipedia you quoted from:
Indeed, I give them great credence as ancient texts and there is much we can surmise from them. I just felt it was necessary not to confuse an ancient biblical scholar's inferences from a modern historian's evidence. No, that would be under-blowing it. There is significant disagreement here.. You are still exaggerating and its far bigger than fringe. But in any case, I do not regard Jesus as mythological. I regard him as legendary. Creation of the earth in 7 days is mythology--A fiction to explain unknown phenomenon as part of an ideology. It's physically impossible, of course. The existence of Jesus is legendary--An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical. He could very well exist, we just have no proof. There is a lot of social evidence and apocryphal evidence to surmise that the likelihood of a historical Jesus is reasonable. A great many legends, even those that have acquired much added baggage over the years, have a real acorn at its roots. We just can't always confirm this.
