tintingz:
When you have fact and evidence for Adam and Eve, Noah's flood event, Moses exodus story, talking donkey, flying chariot, virgin birth, Gog and maggog, walking on water etc Then I will take the bible serious.

From various historians, the bible is full of ancient-cultural myths.

tintingz:
There might be some little truth about the story of Jesus in the bible but I'm yet to believe them as true as there are no historical evidence to back it up, although the person of Jesus might have existed but many of what is said about him in the bible are myths.

What I can accept about Jesus is he's just a motivational speaker, teacher that as knowledge about the Jewish scriptures, charitable man, sentence to death.

Zither:


When you have fact and evidence for evolution, monkeys mutating to human species, the origin of man, an expanding chemical soup that created the stars, moon, sun, planets, plants and the universe at large, then I'll take these scientific theories serious.

Daviddson:
The Bible is a compilation of facts whose content is attested to by different scientific sources, research and diverse studies. It's like saying an event that took place in the 1960s didn't take place just because you weren't born then.

vaxx:
this prove that you see bible as a book that only speaks half truth about Jesus, if you agree with this, then there is probability that the other story maybe true or false... if will should work with the half truth....

vaxx:
this prove that you see bible as a book that only speaks half truth about Jesus, if you agree with this, then there is probability that the other story maybe true or false... if will should work with the half truth....

vaxx:
sir budha . omo baba ilu oyinbo. i hail your present sir.......

Zither:


When you have fact and evidence for evolution, monkeys mutating to human species, the origin of man, an expanding chemical soup that created the stars, moon, sun, planets, plants and the universe at large, then I'll take these scientific theories serious.

Zither:


When you have fact and evidence for evolution, monkeys mutating to human species, the origin of man, an expanding chemical soup that created the stars, moon, sun, planets, plants and the universe at large, then I'll take these scientific theories serious.

wirinet:

First there could not have been anybody called Jesus Christ because the name is purely Roman names and title. Jesus is said to be a transliteration of the name Joshua, while christus is a Roman title meaning messiah. So how can he answer roman name and title when he was not born of roman parents? So in effect nobody called him Jesus when he was alive.

Daviddson:
On the bolded: For your information, neither "Jesus" nor "Christ" is Roman; they're both Greek. And Greek was like the dominating language of communication then because they'd been a vast empire and their culture and names had been adopted far and wide. It's just the same way the English language is currently the most used language for communication today due to the conquest of the then British Empire.

wirinet:




The language of learning and academia was Greek, so if Jesus had any form of formal education, he would have learnt to speak and write Greek.

The

Now, I doubt any of the disciples would have spoken Greek, because they were uneducated and unfettered. So most likely, the disciples communicated in Aramaic.

tintingz:
There's no physical and archaeological evidence for biblical Jesus, the independent evidence is that there was a prisoner named Jesus or so in some Roman letter, there are just two widely accepted historical facts about Jesus existence.

So NO I don't agree with the probability of some biblical myths until more evidences are provided.

vaxx:
there is historical record, that are in parallel with the bible, for instance, the biography of the Emperor Claudius refers to agitations in the Roman Jewish community and the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius during his reign ( from AD 41 to AD 54), likely the expulsion mentioned in the Bible Gateway passage: Acts 18 vs 2. In this context, the name "Chresto" is mentioned, which is likely a reference to Jesus.

Obviously, this validates at least one historical reference in the Bible itself.

tintingz:


Like I said, a person of Jesus might have existed, but the biblical magician Jesus is the one I don't believe to be real.

vaxx:
there is historical record, that are in parallel with the bible, for instance, the biography of the Emperor Claudius refers to agitations in the Roman Jewish community and the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius during his reign ( from AD 41 to AD 54), likely the expulsion mentioned in the Bible Gateway passage: Acts 18 vs 2. In this context, the name "Chresto" is mentioned, which is likely a reference to Jesus.

Obviously, this validates at least one historical reference in the Bible itself.

vaxx:
if i am getting you, you reject biblical Jesus base on supernatural activities attached to him and not because the person of Jesus did not exist. right?

wirinet:


I disagree with you that the "chresto" mentioned in claudius's biography by roman historian Suetonius, was referring to Jesus.

First Suetonius was born AD69 while the events he was supposedly writing about happened between the reign of Emperor Claudius (AD 41 to AD 54), so obviously Suetonius was not writing from position of facts but from hearsay, more than 5 decades after the event is said to have taken place.

Secondly, Jesus was said to have been crucified between AD 30 - AD 33, so how come the same Jesus was causing trouble in Rome between AD 41 to AD 54.

Thirdly, According to acts Paul had not even gotten to Rome, he was in Corinth when he was told that claudius expelled Jews from Rome because of "chresto".

Fourthly, Aquila and his wife Priscilla that accomodated Paul were practicing Jews and not Christians or believers in Christ as the Messiah.

wirinet:


I disagree with you that the "chresto" mentioned in claudius's biography by roman historian Suetonius, was referring to Jesus.

First Suetonius was born AD69 while the events he was supposedly writing about happened between the reign of Emperor Claudius (AD 41 to AD 54), so obviously Suetonius was not writing from position of facts but from hearsay, more than 5 decades after the event is said to have taken place.[b][/b]

Secondly, Jesus was said to have been crucified between AD 30 - AD 33, so how come the same Jesus was causing trouble in Rome between AD 41 to AD 54.

Thirdly, According to acts Paul had not even gotten to Rome, he was in Corinth when he was told that claudius expelled Jews from Rome because of "chresto".

Fourthly, Aquila and his wife Priscilla that accomodated Paul were practicing Jews and not Christians or believers in Christ as the Messiah.

tintingz:
Not because of the supernatural attached to him, the thing is it can not be proven just like Perseus doing wonders on Earth cannot be proven or Sango performing wonders on earth cannot be proven.

The historians agree there are myths attached to the person of Jesus.

vaxx:
you are saying the same thing with different tongue,TO be able to prove the wonders done by the person of jesus is another thing, to be able to prove the existence of the personality of Jesus is another thing too? i am dealing with his personality and not the wonders from historical point of view.

tintingz:
Have I not answered this, like three post of mine.

vaxx:
I do not get your view, is like you accept Jesus as a person is real but the wonders bible claim he perform is not real. that is the way i understand your answer. i wanted to be sure if i am not misinterpreting you. so be specific and not that kind of go in circle analysis.

There might be some little truth about the story of Jesus in the bible but I'm yet to believe them as true as there are no historical evidence to back it up, although the person of Jesus might have existed but many of what is said about him in the bible are myths.

What I can accept about Jesus is he's just a motivational speaker, teacher that as knowledge about the Jewish scriptures, charitable man, sentence to death.

There are more archaeological evidence that supports existence of Muhammed than Jesus, the evidence that Jesus existed isn't strong but we can't deny he existed but not the bible super Jesus.

tintingz:
Here is what i posted.


https://www.nairaland.com/4398649/why-should-not-bother-debate#65869691


https://www.nairaland.com/4398649/why-should-not-bother-debate#65866028

The emboldened part as answered your question, what else do you want to hear?

tintingz:
Almost all historians agree a person of Jesus might have existed or existed but they don't believe the biblical magician Jesus existed as there are no evidence for it, the evidence to prove Jesus existed isn't sufficient, just two widely accepted fact.

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Cc vaxx

Daviddson:
Tintingz and Vaxx, both of you need Jesus Christ. There's no much difference between you both. One of you is a staunch atheist while the other is an agnostic or something similar.

vaxx:
If you mean this evidence do not count , why do you think the source concerning Alexander the Great count? or do you not also accept Alexander the great do exist? if not, i can as well tell you the sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander are all lost. and the only trusted GREEk historian , by the name Arrian of Nicomedia,who is consider one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander has about 500 year difference. do you think is story can be very efficient?

Yet you said references to Jesus written about 5 decades which is independently verified should be dismissed.

most of the history available about Alexandra the great reveals ignorance about geography,chronology and technical military knowledge, yet this source are not questioned as an accurate source of history regarding Alexander's existence.

when it comes to the existence of Jesus, i am very skeptical on the theory, so i will not conclude he did not exist(there are some evidence to accept it).... regarding the supernatural Jesus as the bible portray it, that is story for another day.

There is a huge difference between the historicity of Alexander and that of Jesus. Numerous people including contemporary authors and generals wrote extensively about Alexander the great, the problem is that they were all lost. Remember the great library in alexandra was complete destroyed.

How else did you think Arrian of Nicomedia was able to write consise biography 500 years later?

He had the original sources of course. He could not have dreamed up the biography of Alexander the great. One of the most importance source as cited by Arrian of Nicomedia was the writings of Ptolemy I Soter, who was a general that fought beside Alexander and went on to rule Egypt. Alexander's influence was felt all over the ancient world, from Macedonia to Persian all the way to India.

Alexander the great had physical evidence. There are many coins that date to his period with his head on it. There are also numerous busts and statues of Alexander, some that survived till today.
In the case of Jesus nothing, all the roman Catholic could come up with was a shroud that was said to have been used to cover the crucified Jesus and the shroud retaining the physical features of Jesus. The shroud had been proven to be a 12th or 13th century fraud.