By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
chriscox1121 on 10 April 2013
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

"Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels to determine the historicity of Jesus. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[27][28]"

Not trying to be rude here, but you are failing to understand my point.

All references to Jesus/Yahwey/The Messiah whatever you want to call him are not contemporary. They are from 50+ years after his crucifixion. 

Don't you find it a bit odd that nothing was written about him from his time period? No one alive during Jesus' life wrote of him. 

There were many men named Jesus, it's no different from Adam, or any other name. I'm sure there was a Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible.

so you don't believe anything about history unless there was a contemporary author at that time writing it down as it happened?