Well, looks like Maria has sulked off.

Please look into this subject to educate yourself, the origins of religions is fascinating, but please don't spread lies and misinformation without researching these things first.

Peace, thanks for the chat, this really is a topic I enjoy.

Stratos wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 11:47pm:


Maybe I have family and a life and don't want to spend all of it on here. Some of you people must have very sad little lives.


And I repeat the fact that professional historians do not agree with you. There should be a clue in there somewhere, but I doubt your atheism will permit you to find it.

Stratos wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:49am:


And that is your problem. Unless something can be proven to YOUR satisfaction, you declare it 100% wrong.  Mark's Gospel was apparently written using Peter as the source  - an Eye Witness.  Johns Gospel was written by... john the disciple, an eye witness.

You demand a standard of proof that is impossible for historical documents. Luke was writing on behalf of other eye-witnesses and says as much.

I defy you to prove the existence of any BC era figure using your methodology.

And again, historians don't have the problem you do.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 9:12am:


You realise then that this means that the author was not an eyewitness yes?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 9:12am:


This is extremely debated, if you had researched this in any way you would know that.  The author isn't named in the book, which begs the question, if it WAS John the disciple, why would he not have just said that instead of using the cryptic and nonsensical title "the disciple who Jesus loved".  That hardly narrows it down now does it?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 9:12am:


Luke was writing on behalf of Paul apparently, who never claimed to have met Jesus.  You really don't know your scripture well do you?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 9:12am:


Now you think Jesus is from the BC era

Still though, Pontius Pilate is mentioned by several contemporary historians, plus there is archaeological evidence of his existence in the form of the Pilate Stone.  No contemporary historian mentions Jesus, and there is no archaeological evidence for him.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:41pm:


Pretty sure this chap was substantially pre history.

There is of course another famous BC identity who is only known as Lucy - because our cave dwelling predecessors were not good at record keeping, but she most certainly existed...

Arguably there is more empirical evidence that Lucy existed that JC... Or, if you like, Plato as well.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:14am:



No. It doesn't.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:21am:


So, an eye-witness account only matters if the person writes it themselves? So a ghost-written 'auto-biography' is a complete lie? Do we have to discard any and all evidence and information pertaining to a person unless it was self-written by an eye-witness?

This was what I meant by continually raising the standard of proof bar so that you can happily exclude any material you don't like. And that is why historians don't have the problems you do.