JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
| JakDaSnack said:
Then why do "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
If what your saying is true and their is no "contempory evidence" then why is it that almost all modern scholars (both non-Christian and Christian) agree that he existed? Either A) all of these professionals should be fired, or B) You are missing something.
|
Quoting the same source over and over again isn't advancing this argument. Stop it.
I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here. And what do you mean "if what your saying is true?" It's absolutely true. The scholars don't have any secret information. They are making a conjecture about Jesus' existence. I disagree with their conjecture as no such source exists of contemporaneity.
They are using sources from 50+ years AFTER his alleged resurrection. Where is the data from DURING his life? No where to be found. Astonishing, no?
|
please, define contempory for me, you keep saying 50 years, are you saying that their has to be credible sources within 50 years for it to be contemporary? Does it have to be during his ministry? Please, enlighten us with your definition of contemporary. This may solve a lot of problems.
|
1con·tem·po·rary
adjective kən-ˈtem-pə-ˌrer-ē, -ˌre-rē
1
: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time
There is no historical evidence for Jesus'
from his lifetime. Resurrection in 30 AD, no documents until the close of the first century, and
AT BEST 30 years post hoc using a bit of contrived arguing.
