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

Definition of CONTEMPORARY

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. 

 

As soon as I asked you that I realized that my next point has nothing to do with it, so sorry about making you answer that.

Anyways, lets flash forward 1500 years, we are now in the year 3500, now in regards to the existence of Christ what are they gonna find from people during our generation?  they will find that their was debate, some people agreed that he existed, other disagreed, but the issue is that they are using sources from almost 2000 years prior. 

Now, lets flash back 1700 years, what does everyone (that made mention of him) say about Jesus.  They say he existed, in fact their is no dispute from any non-Christian sources that a man named Jesus walked the earth.  Now why is that?  Because back then, they actually had credible sources, over time, those sources obviously dissappeared, but up until around the 18th centuary, no one disputed the existence of God. 

Now look,you can argue all you want, and make excuses as to why this is, but arguing that the absense of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed proves that Jesus did not exist, is probably the worst argument someone can make, as I can use the same argument that there is no contemporary evidence that suggests that Jesus did not exist.

Sure, everything recorded is likely second hand sources, but back then, no one disagreed that Jesus existed.  



Something...Something...Games...Something