DOWN
Banned
?? There's more christians than any other religious peoplesOnly because he is the the Quran. Otherwise it's be Muhammad by a landslide.
Is your question historically important or famous? Big difference.
?? There's more christians than any other religious peoplesOnly because he is the the Quran. Otherwise it's be Muhammad by a landslide.
Is your question historically important or famous? Big difference.
Adolph Hitler
Everything evil gets compared to him
Jesus Christ.
There's more evidence for Jesus existing than most people in history.
There's more evidence for Jesus existing than most people in history.
Correct me if Im wrong but jesus christ was first mentioned hundreds of years after he supposedly lived
The earliest sources are after his life, yes, by roman historians. But I think its decades after, not centuries.Correct me if Im wrong but jesus christ was first mentioned hundreds of years after he supposedly lived
I don't have to argue a majority since some awareness is all that is required to meet what we are talking about in this thread. You don't have to be Christian or Muslim to know of Jesus or Muhammad. Do you think that a significant number of adults have never heard of Christianity and Jesus in Pune?
You're all arguing the endemic instead of the pandemic. Middle Eastern history is not the totality of the world, if you didn't notice. There's vast swaths of world, who's experiences are shared and mutual, well beyond the current order of the world.
And you're willing to live with your preconceptions because you don't know, or accept better. There's words for each of those.
Edit: And if people are willing to say Jesus, I'lll say Bodhi Dharma
And how much more significant the number would it be than those who know Siddhartha Gautama (Aka, Buddha)? A man who shares history with the vast majority of Asia, and a name who the West shamelessly cop for their contortions.
There is about zero actual evidence for him ever having existed. There are a lot of stories about him, but that's true for Luke Skywalker as well.
The earliest sources are after his life, yes, by roman historians. But I think its decades after, not centuries.
I think most people named jesus nowadays would be found in spanish or portuguese speaking countries.
You'd think such an important figure would be mentioned while he was alive, or atleast shortly after his death
Correct me if Im wrong but jesus christ was first mentioned hundreds of years after he supposedly lived
Do you completely discount all oral traditions as a rule? The vast majority of the world was illiterate 2000 years ago.Yep. There are no contemporary accounts of him. Nobody who's written about him actually lived when he did (not).
Correct me if Im wrong but jesus christ was first mentioned hundreds of years after he supposedly lived
Yep. There are no contemporary accounts of him. Nobody who's written about him actually lived when he did (not).
Nah, there are discovered writings from Christian sources about him that date to within ~25 years of his death. There are writings from non-christian sources that date to within ~60 or so years from his death.
Yeah, but at the time he was not really an important figure, I mean, there were several guys that auto proclaimed themselves as messiah. The cult only gained popularity much later in time.You'd think such an important figure would be mentioned while he was alive, or atleast shortly after his death
There were a lot of "magical sorcerers" at the time and several messiahs, he was just one of them. Life of Brian parodies this quite well.Still not very impressive. Why are there no CONTEMPORARY writings about this amazing magical sorcerer? Seems like it should have been a pretty big deal at the time.
Do you completely discount all oral traditions as a rule? The vast majority of the world was illiterate 2000 years ago.
Edit: I feel like we should limit it to people we factually know existed.
Still not very impressive. Why are there no CONTEMPORARY writings about this amazing magical sorcerer? Seems like it should have been a pretty big deal at the time.
I thought I covered this already. The only consensus is that Jesus was baptised, preached a bit and was crucified.
Those bits are the only consensus. And like I concluded there's a difference between Jesus the man. And astral Jesus from the bible.
Yep. There are no contemporary accounts of him. Nobody who's written about him actually lived when he did (not).
There is no scientific consensus that he ever existed at all. Look it up.
Still not very impressive. Why are there no CONTEMPORARY writings about this amazing magical sorcerer? Seems like it should have been a pretty big deal at the time.
You're wrong, there are many accounts of him well under 100 years after he lived.
I'm not even talking about religious stuff. Are all the Norse sagas fake? They were written down after the fact based on oral tradition.As evidence of anything? Yes. I don't believe in Thor and Odin either.
Yeah, but at the time he was not really an important figure, I mean, there were several guys that auto proclaimed themselves as messiah. The cult only gained popularity much later in time.
So not while he lived then? You should look up the word "contemporary".
Correct me if Im wrong but jesus christ was first mentioned hundreds of years after he supposedly lived
Yep.
There is no scientific consensus that he ever existed at all. Look it up.
I'm not even talking about religious stuff. Are all the Norse sagas fake? They were written down after the fact based on oral tradition.
Going by this line, about 90% if human history has no evidence.Whether they are or not, they're not evidence of anything. And that's what I'm saying: There is no evidence of Jesus having ever existed.
Still not very impressive. Why are there no CONTEMPORARY writings about this amazing magical sorcerer? Seems like it should have been a pretty big deal at the time.
Whether they are or not, they're not evidence of anything. And that's what I'm saying: There is no evidence of Jesus having ever existed.
The majority of historians and scholars of antiquity generally agree that Jesus was a person that existed, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified. "Looking it up" will give you that exact answer.
Whether they are or not, they're not evidence of anything. And that's what I'm saying: There is no evidence of Jesus having ever existed.
Would you tell your profession to find your sources? At the very least provide google evidence.
We're not debating the power(s) of Jesus just his historical existence. There is enough evidence to say there was a historical Jesus.
There is more evidence than simply the stories in the Bible.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
You do realize that all the history books written in ancient times were based on accounts from other people. They didn't witness everything first hand. So is all of non-modern history fake?Whether they are or not, they're not evidence of anything. And that's what I'm saying: There is no evidence of Jesus having ever existed.
Correct me if Im wrong but jesus christ was first mentioned hundreds of years after he supposedly lived
Would you tell your profession to find your sources? At the very least provide google evidence.
You really don't seem to know how historical evidence works. Especially since you seem to think it's somehow "scientific".
I have seen some really terrible ideas about the philosophy and methodology on GAF but this thread definitely takes the cake.
There is not. It's possible, but it's definitely not enough to say it with any certainty.
Science is really all you can go on if you want to claim anything with any believable certainty. We know evolution is real through science. We do not know whether Jesus ever existed. I'm not saying he definitely didn't - because I don't know! - I'm just saying there is no actual evidence for it.