Any authentic historicity about Jesus Christ?

[Medicine*Woman]

And a few thousand years from now people will be saying that the Holocaust never happened either.

*************
M*W: A few thousand years from now? Germans have been saying that since 1945. To this day they still don't admit the atrocities of the Holocaust. I lived in Germany a number of years, and I visited several camps, but they will be denying the Holocaust for thousands of years to come.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

And a few thousand years from now people will be saying that the Holocaust never happened either.

*************
M*W: Apparently, you don't do much reading of biblical archeology.

 

[Kendall]

Communities have a way of making things the way they want, if Jesus did really exist, one must wonder why he faced such a struggle for life, being over 30 without being maried!

 

[Novacane]

Communities have a way of making things the way they want, if Jesus did really exist, one must wonder why he faced such a struggle for life, being over 30 without being maried!

I thinK he probably worried about paying alimony. A carpenter's pay was not so great 2,000 years ago.

 

[ggazoo]

Yes, Nazareth is mentioned in the Gospels.
But the point of this thread is to discuss AUTHENTIC history - that is OUTSIDE the Gospels.

And therin lies the difference. Why atheists don't see the Bible - the best selling book of all time (although I'm aware that doesn't really vindicate it's authenticity) - as an authentic historical resource is beyond me. But it's also going to be the Christian's reason and the atheists excuse, and why the two will never see eye to eye.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Why atheists

I am not an atheist.
You seem to think calling someone a name makes them wrong?
How childish.

Such are the fantasies of Christian apologists - they call anyone who disagrees an "atheist", because they think all atheists are wrong about everything.
How incredibly ignorant, and insulting.

don't see the Bible - the best selling book of all time as an authentic historical resource is beyond me.

It's very simple.
We have explained it to you several times.
You just ignore the facts.

The Bible is full of historical errors.
History does NOT support the Bible.
The Bible is full of legends and fantasy and magic.

You provided some citations of alleged "evidence" for Jesus - I showed they were not evidence at all.

You dropped the subject.
Every time you are shown wrong, you do that.
Then you just keep on preaching.

That's why people don't believe Christian apologists.
You ignore the facts.
You preach your beliefs regardless of the facts.


Iasion

 

[ggazoo]

Greetings,
I am not an atheist.

Sorry about that.

It's very simple.
We have explained it to you several times.
You just ignore the facts.

As do you.

The Bible is full of historical errors.
History does NOT support the Bible.
The Bible is full of legends and fantasy and magic.

Wrong on all 3 accounts. People have failed to prove other to me, and to millions of other believers.

You provided some citations of alleged "evidence" for Jesus - I showed they were not evidence at all.

Nor is there evidence against.

You dropped the subject.
Every time you are shown wrong, you do that.
Then you just keep on preaching.

I usually drop the subject because either:

a) when apologetic responses get shunned and ridiculed (not singling out you lasion, I think we're cool) that's usually a sign of non-believers fearing we may be right; at least that's what I've observed.

b) both sides talk in circles

c) words get twisted as many people try to read what simply isn't there. See 'a'.

That's why people don't believe Christian apologists.
You ignore the facts.
You preach your beliefs regardless of the facts.

As do you.

 

[KennyJC]

Nor is there evidence against.

A comforting notion for the holder of fanciful notions. Although no evidence for this particular religions thousands of grand claims equates to fantasy.

when apologetic responses get shunned and ridiculed (not singling out you lasion, I think we're cool) that's usually a sign of non-believers fearing we may be right; at least that's what I've observed.

You would like to think that atheists are all just scared by the immense weight of your argument and amount of evidence, but it's not so.

It's like a fat person on Jerry Springer who dresses inappropriately saying everyone is "just jealous". Are they jealous?

 

[ggazoo]

It's like a fat person on Jerry Springer who dresses inappropriately saying everyone is "just jealous". Are they jealous?

...

 

[KennyJC]

In case you didn't get it... Saying an atheist 'fears' that the theist may be right is either really arrogant or a copout. I wouldn't find any value in even turning this assumption of yours around and use it against you.

 

[(Q)]

when apologetic responses get shunned and ridiculed that's usually a sign of non-believers fearing we may be right; at least that's what I've observed.

It certainly hasn't been observed here.

But, in your defence, it is the strongest argument a theist can offer.

Complete bollocks of course, but at least you can rest easy in your solace.