Much of the following is false.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hypnotic4502
i think he was a myth.
there's absolutely no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.
|
Same thing with Socrates. Do you think there was a historical Socrates?
Quote:
|
There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.There occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus.
|
How do you define contemporary? The general belief is that Jesus was executed in the 30s. Although this is based on assumptions that aren't entirely valid, it's probably about as good a date as we're going to get. But, IIRC, the earliest epistles were written in the 50s, and the entire NT was written before 100 CE. So all of this is while people who would have been eyewitnesses to Christ's life were still alive. We also have the testimony of Josephus. Admittedly, it seems to have been edited by later Christian writers, but as far as I know, there's no reason to believe that all of his mentions of Jesus were later additions.
Quote:
|
All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either:unknown authors,people who had never met an earthly Jesus,or from fraudulent,mythical or allegorical writings.simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
|
First of all, you need to define 'well after'. And what proof do you have that this is the case for the writings of the New Testament? Luke, for example, may not be an eyewitness, but his writings certainly show evidence of having interviewed eyewitnesses.
I might point out that, as I hinted at earlier, we have far more evidence that Jesus was a real person than for just about any other figure of antiquity. If, given the standards you have claimed, you would also have to deny a historical Socrates, a historical Arthur, or any number of any other historical figures. Your 'standards of evidence' would do away with Herodotus and Livy; most of what we say, for example, about the Punic Wars, comes from their accounts, but they are hardly eyewitnesses to those events.
In general, I find the position that there was no historical Jesus to be utter idiocy. Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree with me about whether or not Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Mind you, I think these people are wrong, but I don't necessarily think they are unreasonable. But how on earth could it come about that a religion like Christianity, which depends so heavily on certain historical truths, be founded by a man who didn't exist?