John Smith wrote on Apr 1
st, 2014 at 11:03pm:
none of whom were alive when Jesus was there .... some people today can't even get the true story re the carbon tax out and that was 2 yrs ago and we've hundreds of written records as proof... what hope have you of getting a true story out 50 yrs after the fact, especially in a time when most of the stories were passed down by word of mouth ? you ever played Chinese whispers?
by the way, I do believe that a 'man' called Jesus was crucified on the cross .... there are records of it happening ... my problem is that the Romans, the greatest record keepers of their era, only ever mentioned Jesus that one time ... no where else was he ever mentioned in any Roman records ..... surely if half the miracles attributed to him were true, the romans would have some records of it somewhere?? a man turns water to wine? walks on water? feeds hundreds with 3 fish? or any of the other wonders attributed to Jesus ..... there are a lot of records of less important more mundane things, why not any of the things he did at the time he did them?
Then why get suckered into one of gregs stupid games? Right back at the start I said this;
"
historians overwhelmingly support the factual existence of a man named Jesus 2000 years ago. Sure many won't believe him to be the Son of God, but they don't doubt the man himself existed."
The peccahead started the game with his comment that only gullible people believe Jesus existed. That's when it moved to the discussion of how mainstream historians accept that a real man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. The only question for debate is who exactly was this man and what did he do. For people like greggery (and the idiot cyborg cat) not even the first part (a man named Jesus is in the historical record) is to be accepted. That's what kept this thing going.
All the big names of history have a level of myth around them. Some of it may be true, some of it may be made up. People will debate and have personal opinions as to what is true and what is not. But the question as to whether the person actually existed is something different. If anyone wants to argue that the Jesus as recorded in history didn't exist then the onus is on them to argue it. Just like if anyone wants to argue that people of history such as Plato, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare, etc, don't exist, then the onus is on them to prove the historical record is wrong. They are the ones arguing against the mainstream. If anyone wants to argue that Jesus didn't perform any miracles but was just an ordinary mortal man, then fine. Many historians have that same view, and it simple fits into the myth area of the man, not the historical record of the mans existence.
If pecca wants to argue that Jesus didn't exist at all and mock anyone who says otherwise, then it is him against the history books.
PS. Congrats on 20,000 posts. Not a bad effort.
rubbish ... the posts about Jesus in the beginning of the thread were clearly about Jesus from the bible ... What Greg and I both agree (it appears that way) on is that there is no evidence of
Jesus mentioned in the bible ... you want to start playing games and pretend you were talking about another Jesus go for it
by the way .... why use the moniker B&B?
Forum
Pages: 
How gullible are some people? (Read 49195 times)
