You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Alpha episode 2: Is there more to life than this? Join the Alpha Course for a share of the SBD from this series of posts
Hello again @wilx and thank you for continuing the discussion.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Jesus except for what has been written by Christian believers (see these links here and here). His followers claim extraordinary things about this person yet all they can point to are writings by anonymous authors. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary and incontrovertible proof. Christianity has never been able to provide that.
Well profesional historians will disagree with you. Here's an interview on a radio show with Ehrman explaining why (with YouTube description):
Non-Christian agnostic historian, Bart Ehrman, is invited on to an atheist radio show apparently in the hope that he will argue against Jesus being an historical person. However, much to this atheist surprise and disapointment Ehrman argues why no serious historian (including himself) denies Jesus' historicity!
This is all very well but again he can offer no proof as to the existence of Jesus apart from writings done by believers. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus which is remarkable given the things that are supposed to have happened around him. If someone raised people from the dead, could feed five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes and have earthquakes etc when they died on the cross (to name only a few things he was supposedly involved in) then surely someone, somewhere, would have written about it separately from the believers. There is nothing.
Let me ask you this. I take it that you believe that Jesus existed based on what the Bible says. Do you believe everything else in the Bible?
Ok. I sat through the video. Will you, in turn, please take the time to read the following article here which gives a good summary for why a belief in Jesus isn't based on fact and also gives a good reason why certain historians may asert Jesus existed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Tnx for the discussion, thing again is that it's not just certain historians it's most all, their professional methodology leaves them with an undeniable conclusion.. your argument is with them, all who read this can draw their own conclusion on this.
Tnx but am knowlegable of all the reasons why the non-professionals give for their beliefs, and tho worthy of some thought after such and study found them as wanting as the pros..
Best to you in this classroom of life.
This is a really bad historian if he is telling you that the proof is in Pual's writings. If you read Galatians (Galatians 4 verses 22-24) Paul tell those with eyes to see that this guy has no idea what he is talking about.