chriscox1121 said:
I'm trying to understand your logic. The question is rhetorical. |
Ah. Well say what you mean then if you wish to accomplish something specific. In this case, yes I would expect contemporary evidence as the means to justify this particular claim. Certainly not all claims can be confined as such, but this one requires witnesses and such. None of these witnesses wrote of the event. That I find to be quite amazing.
| JakDaSnack said: HAHAHAHA, wow, I really thought you had me there, but his is what you said "Back in Roman times no one disagreed that Zeus existed. Your argument is stupid." where in that sentence does it say "romans believed that zeus existed" it doesn't, you said "roman times" meaning that everyone during that time period belived that Zeus existed. haha, anyways, I never ever said I would try and provide contemporary evidence, you assumed that was what I was doing. I completely agree that there is no contemporary evidence, but what I don't agree with is that there "should" be, or that the evidence that their is, DOESNT prove the existence of Jesus. Remember, Jesus was a carpenter, how many ordinary carpenters were recorded in history? The only time period that anythign would have been recorded was during his 3 year ministry, now tell me, do the research, find out "who" should have recorded anything, and if you do this, then we can continue. |
What does Roman times mean to you in regards to theism? ROMAN GODS. I don't care to debate semantics.
I didn't assume anything. I simply challenged you to do so, which you failed to do. No contemporary evidence, no proof. Simple. Issuing a challenge after you've lost a debate is pure lunacy. I think we have completed this discussion.
