Kane1389 said:
DarkD said:
Kane1389 said:
DarkD said:
Too many people who either haven't even read the post fully, dismissed it, or don't know what they are talking about.
The claim here is simple, the proofs that christian scholars have been using to prove Jesus lived, was actually fabricated and introduced as a new religion to a uneducated mass. According to the article, this guy is going to debate it with professionals from the religious community, the fact that he's doing that debunks pretty much all of the crap in the posts above.
Whether it holds water should be proven upon further scrutiny in the debate the guy mentioned when actual professionals will argue with him. |
Except that i provided historical refrences made by non christian hisotirans and scholars. In the time of Nero, if anything, these scholars despised christianity and christians
|
Meaningless, it happened how long ago?
Uhh...what? Tacitus was born 25 years after Christ's death, his date/age help his authenticity, not debunk it. Would you rather have a scholar born in 1980's wirte about hisotricty of Jesus?
Maybe rome wasn't united in its opinion of creating a religion like Christianity. Maybe some passionate zealots from the other religions hated the idea while the monarchy created the religion in secret. If Christianity was a political tool then it stands to reason that no one found out about it. Politics everywhere is so twisted, especially in those times when they could simply burn all the evidence and restrict information so easily.
Oh so it was all a giant big conspiracy, I get it
|
|
Isn't "a giant big conspiracy" exactly what the original post is claiming here? As far as the date goes, im just saying "We weren't there, there are a thousand angles a conspiracy would have played out from. Things go wrong in conspiracies and they do patchwork fixes on the fly. Looking at it from 2000 years in the future is ridiculous. "
Until now I honestly thought that there wasn't any room to doubt that a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago. whether he talked to god was completely up in the air, but I thought we were certain of at least the man being there. Now someone has given me an argument that I haven't heard disproven yet that leaves doubt in my mind.
What we should be doing here is discussing exactly how questionable or reliable this theory is. The author with reputation X who has written A, B, and C has ____ credibility and his argument is based off of X, Y, and Z however Z might just be a fake. Something along those lines.
