Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“but anything less of true, according to the bible, invalidates the whole religion... see, the biblical version HAS to be true, if its not, what else isnt true?... the whole religion collapses.
completely different. conspiracy theorists use untruths and bad science to support their claims. im suggesting that as theres no first hand contemporary accounts of this high profile messiah , from any source, then its perfectly feasible to suggest the biblical version of jesus didnt exist. thats not untrue, thats not bad science, thats a simple fact.
who decides whos 'credible'?... no credible historian would accept supernatural events happened.
but WHICH version of jesus?.... the actual biblical messiah, son of god, spiritual entity ? ..... or does ehrman think hes just a high profile preacher, not the son of god, not the magician? you keep ducking that question.
the only think i dont get is why these historians (probably mostly biased) accept jesus existed when theres a huge hole of evidence contemporary to this high profile miracle man..... unless they dont think he was the biblical son of god, but just a normal preacher.
erm.... how much is wrong with this?
he was the saviour, according to the bible, the one we need to get back to god or we perish.. dont you think he HAD to be high profile?
but those making the story up, simply DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING HIM BE ARISTOCRACY. because no such person existed! if he was born to nobility, there WOULD be records of him.... so the construct HAD to be an ordinary person.
if he didnt go unnoticed, where are all the accounts of him from independent sources? roman authorities?
the story goes that he was rejected (seriously? thousands saw him perform miracles but still rejected him?... seriously? thats utterly bonkers!) and killed.... theres not 1 jot of evidence for this, nor that the magician was the one killed.
even if thats true.... so what? the salvation of mankind doesnt rely on whether these roman emporers existed or not (we have coins, statues, inscriptions though).
so what?.... that doesnt mean jesus existed, it means the christian sect had by the time josephus wrote.
hot air..... that cannot be proven, nor that jesus the miracle man existed or if he did perform miracles.
huh, thats convenient, we have the evidence but lost it, its here honest.... yeah right. it does not explain why theres nothing wrote, mentioned, accounted for, for 30 years after the event. this huge gap has no satisfactory explaination, theres no reason why this should be. unless of course he didnt exist and was a later fabrication.
more waffle... this means, it proves, its evidence for - absolutely nothing.
how strange..... youd chose josephus who doesnt mention jesus, over paul?...
josephus, anyone, has not got any more evidence then we have. he could not prove anything , the bottom line is that there is no contemporary evidence for jesus, nothing, not 1 jot, and all early 'evidence' is from a biased source.
you will not ever agree that jesus might not have existed, you want, you need, to believe he did. but it cannot be proven, by anyone, therefore its perfectly reasonable to suggest he didnt, and the whole religion is a construct.”
Your posts have the scent of conspiracy theory when you use terms like "the construct
had to be."
Or something deliberately done to fool people. Like conspiring to put actors in the Boston Marathon.
Why do you say Josephus didn't mention Jesus, when he clearly did? As "Jesus, who was said to be the messiah."
I think I said the last time, it would be the last time I would explain that there is no contemporary physical evidence for Jesus, but that's not the way real historians (as opposed to random persons hostile to Christianity) draw their conclusions.
And for the life of me, I can't see how you can determine what Christianity rises and falls on, if you aren't Christian.