[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m also interested in this extra biblical evidence you have for Jesus’s existence.[/quote]
Josephus.[/quote]
Have you even looked at the problems with this piece of evidence? They are not even sure if it’s genuine. [/quote]
That’s a problem with history in general, champ, it’s all hearsay. There’s problems with all of Josephus’s stuff. There’s problems will all recorded history. If you cannot prove it with archaeology, you simply have no idea if the events recorded in the past are as people have said they are. You are putting your faith in people you don’t know.
If you are looking for absolutes, history isn’t your friend. Jesus’s existence is independently verified though, archaeology bares out a great deal of biblical history. There are problems abound for history. The further you go back, the murkier the story gets. Your putting undo burdens on this one thing that you simply take on face value in other circumstances.
I’m not saying he didn’t exist but what I am saying is there’s insufficient evidence to support that Jesus did exist.
There’s not single contemporary account from an eye witness.
There’s not a single event from his life we can date or provide evidence for, and all the accounts are done a later generation or more. They are hearsay by non eye witnesses and all events are almost all of a supernatural nature. They have no verification.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m also interested in this extra biblical evidence you have for Jesus’s existence.[/quote]
Josephus.[/quote]
Have you even looked at the problems with this piece of evidence? They are not even sure if it’s genuine. [/quote]
That’s a problem with history in general, champ, it’s all hearsay. There’s problems with all of Josephus’s stuff. There’s problems will all recorded history. If you cannot prove it with archaeology, you simply have no idea if the events recorded in the past are as people have said they are. You are putting your faith in people you don’t know.
If you are looking for absolutes, history isn’t your friend. Jesus’s existence is independently verified though, archaeology bares out a great deal of biblical history. There are problems abound for history. The further you go back, the murkier the story gets. Your putting undo burdens on this one thing that you simply take on face value in other circumstances.[/quote]
Nowhere else do we accept supernatural claims.
When you try to determine if someone existed you have to take an assessment of what you know about them when you build this character story. Take George Washington’s life for instance. We try to find out what of it is true. When we find out a good chunk of it is true we can say you know what? This person most likely existed although there are most likely one or two things like the chopping down the cherry tree I cannot tell a lie story that are pretty much mythical and we throw them out.
Basically everything said about Jesus is of a supernatural nature.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m also interested in this extra biblical evidence you have for Jesus’s existence.[/quote]
Josephus.[/quote]
Have you even looked at the problems with this piece of evidence? They are not even sure if it’s genuine. [/quote]
That’s a problem with history in general, champ, it’s all hearsay. There’s problems with all of Josephus’s stuff. There’s problems will all recorded history. If you cannot prove it with archaeology, you simply have no idea if the events recorded in the past are as people have said they are. You are putting your faith in people you don’t know.
If you are looking for absolutes, history isn’t your friend. Jesus’s existence is independently verified though, archaeology bares out a great deal of biblical history. There are problems abound for history. The further you go back, the murkier the story gets. Your putting undo burdens on this one thing that you simply take on face value in other circumstances.[/quote]
Nowhere else do we accept supernatural claims.
When you try to determine if someone existed you have to take an assessment of what you know about them when you build this character story. Take George Washington’s life for instance. We try to find out what of it is true. When we find out a good chunk of it is true we can say you know what? This person most likely existed although there are most likely one or two things like the chopping down the cherry tree I cannot tell a lie story that are pretty much mythical and we throw them out.
Basically everything said about Jesus is of a supernatural nature.
[/quote]
That he merely existed is a supernatural claim? That’s weird. Particularly in historic circles he is pretty much accepted to exist. It’s really beyond the scope to think that a person who was made up would have changed the world permanently.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m also interested in this extra biblical evidence you have for Jesus’s existence.[/quote]
Josephus.[/quote]
Have you even looked at the problems with this piece of evidence? They are not even sure if it’s genuine. [/quote]
That’s a problem with history in general, champ, it’s all hearsay. There’s problems with all of Josephus’s stuff. There’s problems will all recorded history. If you cannot prove it with archaeology, you simply have no idea if the events recorded in the past are as people have said they are. You are putting your faith in people you don’t know.
If you are looking for absolutes, history isn’t your friend. Jesus’s existence is independently verified though, archaeology bares out a great deal of biblical history. There are problems abound for history. The further you go back, the murkier the story gets. Your putting undo burdens on this one thing that you simply take on face value in other circumstances.[/quote]
Nowhere else do we accept supernatural claims.
When you try to determine if someone existed you have to take an assessment of what you know about them when you build this character story. Take George Washington’s life for instance. We try to find out what of it is true. When we find out a good chunk of it is true we can say you know what? This person most likely existed although there are most likely one or two things like the chopping down the cherry tree I cannot tell a lie story that are pretty much mythical and we throw them out.
Basically everything said about Jesus is of a supernatural nature.
[/quote]
That he merely existed is a supernatural claim? That’s weird. Particularly in historic circles he is pretty much accepted to exist. It’s really beyond the scope to think that a person who was made up would have changed the world permanently.[/quote]
No the claims about things he did in his life are supernatural. It’s possible he existed, but there’s insufficient evidence to support that he did.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m also interested in this extra biblical evidence you have for Jesus’s existence.[/quote]
Josephus.[/quote]
Have you even looked at the problems with this piece of evidence? They are not even sure if it’s genuine. [/quote]
That’s a problem with history in general, champ, it’s all hearsay. There’s problems with all of Josephus’s stuff. There’s problems will all recorded history. If you cannot prove it with archaeology, you simply have no idea if the events recorded in the past are as people have said they are. You are putting your faith in people you don’t know.
If you are looking for absolutes, history isn’t your friend. Jesus’s existence is independently verified though, archaeology bares out a great deal of biblical history. There are problems abound for history. The further you go back, the murkier the story gets. Your putting undo burdens on this one thing that you simply take on face value in other circumstances.[/quote]
Nowhere else do we accept supernatural claims.
When you try to determine if someone existed you have to take an assessment of what you know about them when you build this character story. Take George Washington’s life for instance. We try to find out what of it is true. When we find out a good chunk of it is true we can say you know what? This person most likely existed although there are most likely one or two things like the chopping down the cherry tree I cannot tell a lie story that are pretty much mythical and we throw them out.
Basically everything said about Jesus is of a supernatural nature.
[/quote]
That he merely existed is a supernatural claim? That’s weird. Particularly in historic circles he is pretty much accepted to exist. It’s really beyond the scope to think that a person who was made up would have changed the world permanently.[/quote]
No the claims about things he did in his life are supernatural. It’s possible he existed, but there’s insufficient evidence to support that he did.[/quote]
Your saying he didn’t exist, that’s a bit different than whether or not he did miracles or was conceived miraculously.
There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.
Your saying he didn’t exist, that’s a bit different than whether or not he did miracles or was conceived miraculously. [/quote]
No I said this:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m not saying he didn’t exist but what I am saying is there’s insufficient evidence to support that Jesus did exist.
There’s not single contemporary account from an eye witness.
There’s not a single event from his life we can date or provide evidence for, and all the accounts are done a later generation or more. They are hearsay by non eye witnesses and all events are almost all of a supernatural nature. They have no verification.[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The difference here is for me evidence for the meaning of life requires more than just hearsay and it doesn’t for you.
I’m willing to believe relatively unimportant facts from the past on hearsay, because in the greater schemes it doesn’t matter.
Back to my post of sufiandy:
The gospels were written about ~40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Christ with which
there is no credible extrabiblical evidence for the history of Jesus that isn’t being questioned legitimately as a forgery
[/quote]
Yes the new testament was written after Jesus died.
Refer to the old testament[/quote]
it was written 40 years after he died by non eye witness accounts.
the OT is part of the bible
[/quote]
Gospel of John is largely believed to be the apostle. Considering the amount of dialog taking place in the inner circle, this makes sense.
There is also the fact that people thought the world was going to end in pretty short order, so there wasn’t compelling reasons to jot this stuff down until they realized it wasn’t. Further, the church was persecuted and a lot of these guys were on the move all the time. Give 'em a break. They did their best.
Your saying he didn’t exist, that’s a bit different than whether or not he did miracles or was conceived miraculously. [/quote]
No I said this:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m not saying he didn’t exist but what I am saying is there’s insufficient evidence to support that Jesus did exist.
There’s not single contemporary account from an eye witness.
There’s not a single event from his life we can date or provide evidence for, and all the accounts are done a later generation or more. They are hearsay by non eye witnesses and all events are almost all of a supernatural nature. They have no verification.[/quote]
[/quote]
John and Peter were eye witnesses. They John wrote an account, Peter did not, but he wrote 3 epistles about the faith referring to Jesus frequently.
Your saying he didn’t exist, that’s a bit different than whether or not he did miracles or was conceived miraculously. [/quote]
No I said this:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m not saying he didn’t exist but what I am saying is there’s insufficient evidence to support that Jesus did exist.
There’s not single contemporary account from an eye witness.
There’s not a single event from his life we can date or provide evidence for, and all the accounts are done a later generation or more. They are hearsay by non eye witnesses and all events are almost all of a supernatural nature. They have no verification.[/quote]
[/quote]
John and Peter were eye witnesses. They John wrote an account, Peter did not, but he wrote 3 epistles about the faith referring to Jesus frequently.[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.
There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.
Would you believe them?
Why or why not?[/quote]
Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.
There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.
Would you believe them?
Why or why not?[/quote]
Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]
Also they seem to have only recently appeared conveniently in the last century or so when the concept of aliens was gaining popularity. Basically if they had no concept of what an alien was would they have made the same claims?
Your saying he didn’t exist, that’s a bit different than whether or not he did miracles or was conceived miraculously. [/quote]
No I said this:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m not saying he didn’t exist but what I am saying is there’s insufficient evidence to support that Jesus did exist.
There’s not single contemporary account from an eye witness.
There’s not a single event from his life we can date or provide evidence for, and all the accounts are done a later generation or more. They are hearsay by non eye witnesses and all events are almost all of a supernatural nature. They have no verification.[/quote]
[/quote]
John and Peter were eye witnesses. They John wrote an account, Peter did not, but he wrote 3 epistles about the faith referring to Jesus frequently.[/quote]
And we’re not sure who wrote John.[/quote]
We’re not sure who wrote any of it. These are ancient texts and there was efforts to curtail the movement. But it’s thought with reasonable certainly that the one “John” was the author, either that or a one of his scribes who took down the dictations. It hard to know what John knew with out having been there.