BF2S Forums Half of Britons do not believe in evolution

Bertster7 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Woah....

There most certainly is room for doubt. Where is some firm evidence that Jesus existed?

There is no hard evidence but to many stories from to many sources says the probability is much greater that he did exist that the opposite ... I firmly believe he existed but only as a normal human being and not the devine son of God ... normal is maybe not the right word, he must have been spectacular to find his way into the history books

In which non-Christian sources can you find stories about Jesus?

He found his way into history books because the Christians were a cult rapidly rising to prominence and so the historians mentioned him based on the accounts of these Christians - which are not reliable.

Varegg wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

There is no hard evidence but to many stories from to many sources says the probability is much greater that he did exist that the opposite ... I firmly believe he existed but only as a normal human being and not the devine son of God ... normal is maybe not the right word, he must have been spectacular to find his way into the history books

In which non-Christian sources can you find stories about Jesus?

He found his way into history books because the Christians were a cult rapidly rising to prominence and so the historians mentioned him based on the accounts of these Christians - which are not reliable.

There are notes about him in Roman execution records, him and other people that were executed for the same "crimes" ... other religions also ackowledge him as a prophet but not the son of God ... like Islam, Hinduism and several others ...

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-03 12:32:51)

Bell wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

.....and so the historians mentioned him based on the accounts of these Christians - which are not reliable.

That's more of a commentators role, not a historian.

Tacitus, was born about 20years after the alleged resurrection of Christ.  He was a historian, not a commentator, as such he isn't as likely to base his writings on christian testimony.  Further, his writings where, extremely condescending towards the Christians, and he essentially mocked them in his writings.

If you want to go to say, the second century, Lucian of (damn I cant remember).  He very often criticised his contemporaries for distorting history to flatter there masters (or indeed there own prejudices).  Considering this it isn't as likely he based his writings on what Christians said, nor did he ever state that Jesus was a God figure.  He simply stated he was a preacher, he had a group of followers, he was crucified for blasphemy and his followers went on to follow his teachings after his death.

Some people claim that the Christians forged this sort of stuff, and, I have no doubt they did for some sources, however, one would think if I forged this stuff I would talk much more favourable about myself.  Considering I want to control everyone and get there muniez

Martyn

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-03 12:53:16)

Bertster7 wrote:

Bell wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

.....and so the historians mentioned him based on the accounts of these Christians - which are not reliable.

That's more of a commentators role, not a historian.

Tacitus, was born about 20years after the alleged resurrection of Christ.  He was a historian, not a commentator, as such he isn't as likely to base his writings on christian testimony.  Further, his writings where, extremely condescending towards the Christians, and he essentially mocked them in his writings.

If you want to go to say, the second century, Lucian of (damn I cant remember).  He very often criticised his contemporaries for distorting history to flatter there masters (or indeed there own prejudices).  Considering this it isn't as likely he based his writings on what Christians said, nor did he ever state that Jesus was a God figure.  He simply stated he was a preacher, he had a group of followers, he was crucified for blasphemy and his followers went on to follow his teachings after his death.

Some people claim that the Christians forged this sort of stuff, and, I have no doubt they did for some sources, however, one would think if I forged this stuff I would talk much more favourable about myself.  Considering I want to control everyone and get there muniez

Martyn

I am well aware of the passage Tacitus wrote about Christ. There is no source for his remarks and it is not believed to be from any official Roman records. It is quite plausible that his source is Christian hearsay.

The best anyone can produce are either a paragraph here, or a sentence there, that may or may not refer to Jesus and was written decades or centuries after his death. The only contempary account I have ever seen is from the Talmud and suggests he was hung, not crucified - which conflicts with later reports.


I don't dispute he may well have been real (I suspect he was) - but to say there is no doubt of it is going a bit far.

Last edited by Bell (2009-02-03 13:01:15)

Bell wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bell wrote:

That's more of a commentators role, not a historian.

Tacitus, was born about 20years after the alleged resurrection of Christ.  He was a historian, not a commentator, as such he isn't as likely to base his writings on christian testimony.  Further, his writings where, extremely condescending towards the Christians, and he essentially mocked them in his writings.

If you want to go to say, the second century, Lucian of (damn I cant remember).  He very often criticised his contemporaries for distorting history to flatter there masters (or indeed there own prejudices).  Considering this it isn't as likely he based his writings on what Christians said, nor did he ever state that Jesus was a God figure.  He simply stated he was a preacher, he had a group of followers, he was crucified for blasphemy and his followers went on to follow his teachings after his death.

Some people claim that the Christians forged this sort of stuff, and, I have no doubt they did for some sources, however, one would think if I forged this stuff I would talk much more favourable about myself.  Considering I want to control everyone and get there muniez

Martyn

I am well aware of the passage Tacitus wrote about Christ. There is no source for his remarks and it is not believed to be from any official Roman records. It is quite plausible that his source is Christian hearsay.

The best anyone can produce are either a paragraph here, or a sentence there, that may or may not refer to Jesus and was written decades or centuries after his death. The only contempary account I have ever seen is from the Talmud and suggests he was hung, not crucified - which conflicts with later reports.


I don't dispute he may well have been real (I suspect he was) - but to say there is no doubt of it is going a bit far.

Oh sure I agree (well, depending on the day of the week).

Considering your mention of the Talmud, have you came across what Celsus wrote?