Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FailedEagle
This may or may not come off as odd, but I'm revisiting this thread. In light of what I've been reading this seems to be a question being posed more often than not is the question of Jesus's existance. I've been reading about how nothing was written by him and nothing was written during his lifetime about him, and this and that. So, I'm going to ask that the existance of George Washington be proven. You'll hopefully catch my drift fairly quickly.
|
your drift is caught, and it's a bad analogy.
we have washingtons writings. we have paintings of him that were done during his lifetime (so we know he was a whiteman that wore an english style wig) and i do believe we have his fake teeth in a museum, although i could be wrong about that part. we have his signiture on documents, we have thousands of contemporary eye-witness accounts describing events that had happened hours and days before.
with jesus we have a book compiled 300 years after he died consisting of smaller books that were written at the closest 30 years after he died. and those individual chapters are very possibly written each by multiple authors who may or may not have known jesus and been who they say they are.
if jesus was so important, why didn't his buddies have him sit for a painting? why didn't they write down and chrnonicle his life while following him around? why'd they wait 30-60 years (at minimum) before finally writing it down? why is he not mentioned anywhere else by anyone? what makes you think that the bible is inerrant when it was written so long after he died? and then with all the contradictions?
you may not be able to see or hear washington because he lived before the age of video. but we know what he looked like and what he thought and wrote about, we know what others that lived during his time thought of him. with jesus we only a white man on a cross (who wasn't white) with stories written by a few people long after he died.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
|