[QUOTE="clembo1990"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
First of all, you are assuming that the testimony of the authors of the Bible is unreliable and biased because they happened to believe what they saw and experienced. That is a logical fallacy.
That being said, there are secular writers and non-Christian that have referred to Christ. Here is some information.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
blackregiment
Incredibly vague, second hand sources. He is no more a man, by this logic, than was Homer.Ok it's bad enough you gave me that infamous dribble but this really tickled me:
"It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed."
EDIT: By the way, i think this crap speaks for itself, just so you know...
Jesus performed a few miracles in his time. If fishermen could pass on what miracles he performed then why not important figures, first hand eye witnesses, there are no "this guy said that..." and it just so happens that these people get their say in the Bible.
As for it being a historical document, you HAVE to take into account the wider context surrounding the idea of Christianity. History and faith are separate. Mixing them gets occasional rubbish like Herodotus, he took Greek mythology as a matter of fact and his "history" was littered with hole-filling in spite of his great passion for search out the truths behind the myths. Such heracy was not permitted as to deny the truth of the gods, all he did was pitter patter around the mythology and made it work with actual history he helped to develop from a dogma into a semi-functional detective work. Quite interesting deviation, it's worth a look.
Anyway, I made such a bold statement because even the most determined Christian detectives have failed to present sufficient evidence. It would hardly matter to me anyway whether he were real or not. If Buddha were not real would that effect his message? Would it really matter if Buddha was 6 clever guys? I suppose it'd be harder to convince the peasants with but what I care about is truth, it stops me from getting conned. I will suspend disbelief when my mind can't see a fallacy as plain as day. My darkest hour is when I admit Theism plausable.
Like I said, God gave us a free will to believe whatever we choose. It is not uncommon for those that do not believe to reject any and all evidence.
God has revealed Himself in His creation, in His providence, in His Word, in Jesus Christ, in our conscience, and in the power of the Holy Spirit to change the lives of those that put their faith in Christ.
The evidence bounds, one just has to want to look for it. Therein lies the problem for many non-believers, they choose to refuse to look.One confirmation for this is the response from non-believers to any evidence supplied.With virtual 100% certainty, when one presents a non-believer with any evidence whatsoever, the vast majority of non-believers immediately discount it, refuse to consider it, and immediately begin to attempt to discredit it.I can honestly say that in years of debates with non-believers I can count on my fingers, and I am not sure I would even need to go past one hand, the number of times a non-believer has responded with even the slightest acknowledgement that an evidence presented was even in the slightest way compelling.On the other hand, they are quick to accept as truth the unproven fact that the universe, all matter, energy, space and time, created itself from a singularity that occupied no dimension in space since space did not even exist. They are quick to accept the "truth" that black holes exist based on mathematical formulas and observations of their alleged effect on their surroundings because science sys they exist. Or they are quick to accept that all that exists is the natural world because science has proclaimed that. And they are quick to believe that life formed from non-living chemical by chance.The amazing thing is that for anything in this world, for example, in a criminal trial, there exists evidence of guilt and evidence of innocence that is considered by the jury in reaching their decision. Yet in the minds of many non-believers, any evidence for the existence of God is in never acknowledged as a even a remote possibility worthy of consideration.
I find this very compelling evidence that the majority of non-believers are not openly searching for the truth, but rather are attempting to just comfort themselves by justifying their non-belief.
If yu have to take what you can't see as real you've fallen at the first hurdle. You are buying into a dogma. That's not how historians and the like do it, they don't just say "hey I don't know where this mosaic came from. It's most likely a work of the gods for it is so grand and detailed." I'm bound to see the truth in this and "faith" is incompatible with fact. Whether Jesus was real is either provable or inconclusive. Basically his existence is sketchy despite popular belief. His message is different, no reason we can't use that. But I will not be fooled for a second. I don't have to use superstition to explain things, I prefer to accept a lack of knowledge, an inconclusion or a rational estimation. After all humanity is a pathetically young and naive species, the fact we are alive at all is amazing, to think we know everything about the universe would be called hubris even by the ancient's standards if only they saw the hypocracy. 
Log in to comment