The earliest histories about alexander the great was written by arian and plutarch and that was 400 years afte his death but no one disputes that he was a historical figure

Because you can't find secular historians talking about Jesus is no prove that he does not exist. Jesus lived in a tiny areA of a largely insignficant part of the roman empire.

The jews had no reason to publicise him, they hated him and if he did not exist, the jews would have been the first to raise the alarm when they were trying to discredit and crush early xtianity.

Pilate was a roman official, the whole record about him is less than that for Jesus. You can hardly find anything about him. In fact for many yrs critics said he never existed because the only record of Him was in the Bible and of course they don't trust the bible until they saw a tiny mention of him elsewhere. I can tell you about dozen more people critics said never existed because they were only found in the Bible, decades later or even centuries later, they will now see hard evidence and then humbly eat their words in shame.

The Evidence of Pilate's existence at least by those who were alive during his time where by the four gospel writers, Josephus and Philo who are jews, and lastly Tacitus. Tacitus was the only Roman during his time who recorded something about Pilate and even he got the official title wrong.

One of the physical evidence of Pilate's existence is the discovery of a stone which mentioned his name and gave him his proper title.

Even the only Roman Mention of Pilate i.e the one by Tacitus also mentioned Jesus Christ, the Historian said Jesus was put to death by one of their officials Pilate. So if this statement is discarded as fraud by those who don't believe in Jesus as a real person, then that automatically destroys the existence of Pilate by any offical/roman records.

So where are all the thousands of reports pilates sent to rome, the edict of his appointments, the official tax records, all the building projects and activities he engaged in as recorded by Josephus and Philo. Where are the governmental records, probably going into thousands. They are all Gone, Lost to antiquity, the only physical evidence of him is that Stone.

So those who wants official records of a vilified and hated prophet, from an unknown or unimportant area of the Roman empire and written by a roman court official or Historian knows little about ancient records, they still have a lot of digging to do.

ifeness:
There is no direct evidence that a man called Jesus existed in Israel. After the invasion of the black civilization in Egypt by the Persians(modern day Turkey) which was around 354 BC. A lot of distortions of the Library in Egypt has taken place. All the statues with Negro faces have be broken and now they wanna show us the "SAVIOR" of the world is Jewish. Everything to make the Jewish superior by all means.

Of course there won't be any evidence they can pull out that Jesus(Horus) actually existed in Israel,neither can they point to any tombs of the ancient rulers/kings who they claimed ruled Israel. But over the years,they have forced people to have faith that Jesus actually exist. Well it does in a Christianized mind.

The picture included is my own picture taken from the British museum. That was supposed to be the burial stone of the last black ruler of Egypt before the Persian/white invasion. Thereafter we had the Bible and other white historical saviours. That was possible because they all lived Egypt and studied books written by the black Egyptians. All the black heroes became white all of a sudden.

Hey friend, remember me?
How is your journey to Hell, I hope it getting hotter?

last question - why does being a black man makes you feel so inferior and why do you have to blame your feeling of inferiority on Christianity?

rabzy:


How can you say it is laughable. His life was in danger and he was proving the basis of his beliefs. As evidence he asked the Roman senate to check one of their own documents to attest to what he is saying. would he stake his life on a non-existent document.

Mind you he a converted xtian, you think he would risk his life on a lie and also base his evidence on a non-existent document? It wasn't a laughing matter, it was a life and death matter. So it is a relevant case to mention.

It is not a matter of whether he was lying or not. He was just confessing what he believed. That does not make his confession true.

A Muslim he confesses that Mohammed is the last and true prophet if god is also being truthful about his convictions. It does not make it true.

Ask yourself, why there is absence of evidence e, real indisputable evidence, about the life of Jesus.
Apolonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus, who did similar miraculous feats, stands history as undisputed historical figure, even though no religion was build on his behalf.

plaetton:

Oh please!
Josephus mention of "the followers of a man called Jesus" has been widely discredited as a Pius fraud, inserted much later after the book had been written.

But even at that, Josephus mentions it as heresay many years after the events supposedly took place, not as something he had witnessed.

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3]

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[17] and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[18]

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic.[19][20][21]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[22] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[19][23] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[19][24][23]

The Josephus story has not been widely discredited, it has actually been reluctantly and strenuously accepted by most scholars.

Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus.[81][need quotation to verify] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[82] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[83][not in citation given] Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995 "[t]hat (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.[84]

One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis.[85][86][87] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[85][87][88] The Gospel of Matthew attempts to offset this problem by having John feel unworthy to baptise Jesus and Jesus giving him permission to do so in Matthew 3:14–15.[89]

Hiswordxray:


Hey friend, remember me?
How is your journey to Hell, I hope it getting hotter?

last question - why does being a black man makes you feel so inferior and why do you have to blame your feeling of inferiority on Christianity?

Hilarious case of reverse psychology and projection.
It is the christotards that have a shameful inferiority complex.
They are the ones that deny their culture, history and self-identity.

Ifeness is just trying give you facts that may slap you back to reality.

plaetton:

It is not a matter of whether he was lying or not. He was just confessing what he believed. That does not make his confession true.

A Muslim he confesses that Mohammed is the last and true prophet if god is also being truthful about his convictions. It does not make it true.

Ask yourself, why there is absence of evidence e, real indisputable evidence, about the life of Jesus.
Apolonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus, who did similar miraculous feats, stands history as undisputed historical figure, even though no religion was build on his behalf.

This is where the duplicity of those who oppose Jesus historicity shines through and clear. please can you kindly enlightened us about when Apolonius lived, who and how many people wrote about him and at what time did they write it.

Most of what we know about apolonius was written by philostratus over a hundred years after apolonius have lived. He based several of his stories on books which no longer exists and so could not be verified. The author, Philostratus, was born around 172 AD. This means that whereas there were still people alive when the Gospels were written who could confirm or deny their historicity, in the case of Apollonius, everyone who knew him was long dead and buried.

Philostratus' source, the diary of Damis, is "full of historical anachronisms and gross geographical errors." [Meie.MarJ, 576-8] Elsewhere, Philostratus makes use of imaginary official letters, inscriptions, decrees and edicts. [Cart.DSG, 205]
The Gospels have been cited for minor geographical and historical errors, some of which have suitable explanations, but none may be described as "gross," and they have NEVER been found guilty of faking official documents.

Philos was paid to write about apolonius by empress Julia whose son worships Apolonius who is also believed to be a prophet. you want to compare the historicity of what a paid writer wrote hundred years after the person had died containing gross errors and forgery to that written by at least 7 people who were alive when the events took place and who stake their lives and those of their family and relatives on what they saw and believed.

Please for the sake of fairness and honesty and reasonableness don't do it, it makes me want to cry.

rabzy:
Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus.[81][need quotation to verify] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[82] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[83][not in citation given] Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995 "[t]hat (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.[84]

One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis.[85][86][87] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[85][87][88] The Gospel of Matthew attempts to offset this problem by having John feel unworthy to baptise Jesus and Jesus giving him permission to do so in Matthew 3:14–15.[89]

A pile of dung.
You have presented nothing in the form of evidence except to quote from people who share your beliefs.
That is a pathetic.
Joseph and Tacticus references to Jesus are fraudulent attempts in the past to do what you are desperately trying to do now.
Both Josephus and Tacticus were mentioning the " he said, she said" myths of their time, decades and decades after the supposed events. That is not evidence.

During civil war, many Igbos believed that Ojukwu was an invincible god-like Superman.
If Ojukwu had not come back from exile, this myth would have been repeated, maintained and propagated, and probably written about.
Would it have made it true?

If you really want the truth about Jesus, why don't Christian all over the world petition and lobby the Vatican to release their miles of underground libraries to the public domain.

rabzy:


This is where the duplicity of those who oppose Jesus historicity shines through and clear. please can you kindly enlightened us about when Apolonius lived, who and how many people wrote about him and at what time did they write it.

No.
I don't owe you that.
Information about apolonius of Tyana is in the public domain.
There are no controversies about him.
In fact, the early church fathers were so embarrassed by the similarities in the life of Apolonius of Tyana and Jesus, that they labelled him the Antichrist who the devil had sent to imitate Jesus.

plaetton:

No.
I don't owe you that.
Information about apolonius of Tyana is in the public domain.
There are no controversies about him.
In fact, the early church fathers were so embarrassed by the similarities in the life of Apolonius of Tyana and Jesus, that they labelled him the Antichrist who the devil had sent to imitate Jesus.

This is where the duplicity of those who oppose Jesus historicity shines through and clear. please can you kindly enlightened us about when Apolonius lived, who and how many people wrote about him and at what time did they write it.

Most of what we know about apolonius was written by philostratus over a hundred years after apolonius have lived. He based several of his stories on books which no longer exists and so could not be verified. The author, Philostratus, was born around 172 AD. This means that whereas there were still people alive when the Gospels were written who could confirm or deny their historicity, in the case of Apollonius, everyone who knew him was long dead and buried.

Philostratus' source, the diary of Damis, is "full of historical anachronisms and gross geographical errors." [Meie.MarJ, 576-8] Elsewhere, Philostratus makes use of imaginary official letters, inscriptions, decrees and edicts. [Cart.DSG, 205]
The Gospels have been cited for minor geographical and historical errors, some of which have suitable explanations, but none may be described as "gross," and they have NEVER been found guilty of faking official documents.

Philos was paid to write about apolonius by empress Julia whose son worships Apolonius who is also believed to be a prophet. you want to compare the historicity of what a paid writer wrote hundred years after the person had died containing gross errors and forgery to that written by at least 7 people who were alive when the events took place and who stake their lives and those of their family and relatives on what they saw and believed.

Please for the sake of fairness and honesty and reasonableness don't do it, it makes me want to cry.

rabzy:


This is where the duplicity of those who oppose Jesus historicity shines through and clear. please can you kindly enlightened us about when Apolonius lived, who and how many people wrote about him and at what time did they write it.

Most of what we know about apolonius was written by philostratus over a hundred years after apolonius have lived. He based several of his stories on books which no longer exists and so could not be verified. The author, Philostratus, was born around 172 AD. This means that whereas there were still people alive when the Gospels were written who could confirm or deny their historicity, in the case of Apollonius, everyone who knew him was long dead and buried.

Philostratus' source, the diary of Damis, is "full of historical anachronisms and gross geographical errors." [Meie.MarJ, 576-8] Elsewhere, Philostratus makes use of imaginary official letters, inscriptions, decrees and edicts. [Cart.DSG, 205]
The Gospels have been cited for minor geographical and historical errors, some of which have suitable explanations, but none may be described as "gross," and they have NEVER been found guilty of faking official documents.

Philos was paid to write about apolonius by empress Julia whose son worships Apolonius who is also believed to be a prophet. you want to compare the historicity of what a paid writer wrote hundred years after the person had died containing gross errors and forgery to that written by at least 7 people who were alive when the events took place and who stake their lives and those of their family and relatives on what they saw and believed.

Please for the sake of fairness and honesty and reasonableness don't do it, it makes me want to cry.

"Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed mother the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.[18]"

Guess who wrote this piece, and guess whom he is writing about.

plaetton:

Hilarious case of reverse psychology and projection.
It is the christotards that have a shameful inferiority complex.
They are the ones that deny their culture, history and self-identity.

Ifeness is just trying give you facts that may slap you back to reality.

I wasn't talking to you or are you also suffering from inferiority of your race?
If so you don't have to blame Christians for your problem, simply ask for help.

Hiswordxray:


I wasn't talking to you or are you also suffering from inferiority of your race?
If so you don't have to blame Christians for your problem, simply ask for help.

Senseless ranting.

Christianity, no, all religions are racist by nature.
It is a convenient too of conquest and racial subjugation.

The people who sold christianity to you have removed your brain, your mind, your self-identity and replaced with toxic garbage.
Every thing you have uttered so far attests to this fact.

plaetton:


Senseless ranting.

Christianity, no, all religions are racist by nature.
It is a convenient too of conquest and racial subjugation.

The people who sold christianity to you have removed your brain, your mind, your self-identity and replaced with toxic garbage.
Every thing you have uttered so far attests to this fact.

It seem you are not ready for help.
Well continue to suffer your inferiority problem and when you are ready for help, I am available to help you.

God loves you silly

Personally, I am ambivalent about the historicity of Jesus. A first century Jewish teacher named Jesus may have lived and died, but the historical circumstances of his birth, life and death are unclear. Why? In the first instance there are no actual eyewitness accounts of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, the earliest writer was the unknown author of the Book of Mark his account was predicated on hearsay supposedly garnered by Papias (a dubious writer described as a fool by Eusebius)who in turn claimed his information was obtained from an elderly fellow who supposedly heard the words of a disciple.

Then there is the Apostle Paul who wrote even earlier than the author of Mark, he claimed he grew up in Jerusalem studying under Gamaliel, he would have been a contemporary of Jesus, clearly he knew nothing about him, not even that he was betrayed by Judas.

Even more baffling is the silence from Jewish sources, Jesus appears in no contemporary Jewish writing whatsoever, no matter how much it is claimed he was hated by the Jews (he wasn’t) he would have been recorded, the closest that can be sighted in Jewish sources is Jesus ben Pantera ( Talmud) and for obvious reasons Christians do not want to go there.

Then there’s the small matter of the Essenes, the Nazarene group based at Qumran with whom Jesus shared so much in common doctrinally they were gnostic authors of the dead sea scrolls, contemporary to Jesus, however not so much as a word is written down by them about the “Messiah” nor his teachings, if anything, their teachings are ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth, very baffling is the fact that we can glean from Essenic writings a “teacher of righteousness” and cross reference this with the works of Josephus to establish James the Just (supposed brother of Jesus) who led the early Ebionites, and his struggle with the one described as “Father of lies” (Saulus) Paul, and make the hidden connection to his role in the killing of Stephen and James, all from the historian Josephus’ writings. However Josephus is curiously silent about Jesus other than two second hand throwaway statements that have been corrupted by later Christian insertions, and on and on and on it goes…..the silence of history particularly by those who would have good reasons to talk about Jesus of Nazareth is deafening.

The Jesus of Nazareth that may have lived certainly bears no relation to that described in the gospels.

Hiswordxray:


Hey friend, remember me?
How is your journey to Hell, I hope it getting hotter?

last question - why does being a black man makes you feel so inferior and why do you have to blame your feeling of inferiority on Christianity?

You meant your journey in the cycle of ignorance! Well too bad i do not feel as inferior as you do. Your Jewish Master needs that weekly donation of yours on Sunday.

I'm sure hell will be full of wise people,wise enough to quench the fire and turn it into a paradise. Meanwhile you will go through vigorous praise and worship to your emotional deity.

Sarassin:

Personally, I am ambivalent about the historicity of Jesus. A first century Jewish teacher named Jesus may have lived and died, but the historical circumstances of his birth, life and death are unclear. Why? In the first instance there are no actual eyewitness accounts of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, the earliest writer was the unknown author of the Book of Mark his account was predicated on hearsay supposedly garnered by Papias (a dubious writer described as a fool by Eusebius)who in turn claimed his information was obtained from an elderly fellow who supposedly heard the words of a disciple.

Then there is the Apostle Paul who wrote even earlier than the author of Mark, he claimed he grew up in Jerusalem studying under Gamaliel, he would have been a contemporary of Jesus, clearly he knew nothing about him, not even that he was betrayed by Judas.

Even more baffling is the silence from Jewish sources, Jesus appears in no contemporary Jewish writing whatsoever, no matter how much it is claimed he was hated by the Jews (he wasn’t) he would have been recorded, the closest that can be sighted in Jewish sources is Jesus ben Pantera ( Talmud) and for obvious reasons Christians do not want to go there.

Then there’s the small matter of the Essenes, the Nazarene group based at Qumran with whom Jesus shared so much in common doctrinally they were gnostic authors of the dead sea scrolls, contemporary to Jesus, however not so much as a word is written down by them about the “Messiah” nor his teachings, if anything, their teachings are ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth, very baffling is the fact that we can glean from Essenic writings a “teacher of righteousness” and cross reference this with the works of Josephus to establish James the Just (supposed brother of Jesus) who led the early Ebionites, and his struggle with the one described as “Father of lies” (Saulus) Paul, and make the hidden connection to his role in the killing of Stephen and James, all from the historian Josephus’ writings. However Josephus is curiously silent about Jesus other than two second hand throwaway statements that have been corrupted by later Christian insertions, and on and on and on it goes…..the silence of history particularly by those who would have good reasons to talk about Jesus of Nazareth is deafening.

The Jesus of Nazareth that may have lived certainly bears no relation to that described in the gospels.

Apparently the sources of the stories about Jesus ain't reliable,not to talk of the supernatural powers attributed to him. There should have been some paintings,drawings by people who actually witnessed to alleged miracles he performed. I wanna believe some of his audience were artists,writers or poets who should have written something down about this weird character.

Just as science and technology is not reliant on the Bible for explanation of the Universe, we shouldn't see the bible or the stories about Jesus as genuine.

Hiswordxray:

It seem you are not ready for help.
Well continue to suffer your inferiority problem and when you are ready for help, I am available to help you.

God loves you silly

Pot calling the kettle black lol. Who actually needs help here? Is it someone who believes in a talking donkey or someone who is trying to help a blind cross the road?

ifeness:

I'm sure hell will be full of wise people,wise enough to quench the fire and turn it into a paradise. Meanwhile you will go through vigorous praise and worship to your emotional deity.

Ha! my friend who told you this lie?
No matter how wise you are you can quench the fire in hell and their is absolutely no way you can turn it to a paradise.

Don't worry you can make it to heaven if you what.
Those sins you find pleasurable are nothing compared to the pleasure you will enjoy in Christ both on earth and in heaven.
I know you love having sex with women but sex itself is just a type and a shadow of the pleasure you will enjoy in heaven.

I can help you if you will put away your foolishness and decide to make heaven.

Hiswordxray:


Ha! my friend who told you this lie?
No matter how wise you are you can quench the fire in hell and their is absolutely no way you can turn it to a paradise.

Don't worry you can make it to heaven if you what.
Those sins you find pleasurable are nothing compared to the pleasure you will enjoy in Christ both on earth and in heaven.
I know you love having sex with women but sex itself is just a type and a shadow of the pleasure you will enjoy in heaven.

I can help you if you will put away your foolishness and decide to make heaven.

I only deal with evidence,of which you have none. Your so called a God is nothing but a Alien you will freak if you meet. But must I help an unwilling blind man cross the road? No!!!

ifeness:


I only deal with evidence,of which you have none. Your so called a God is nothing but a Alien you will freak if you meet. But must I an unwilling blind man cross the road? No!!!

ifeness my friend, the one that choses the path to hell.
OK then, safe journey and have fun with your fear, guilt and emptiness. And when you have gotten to your destination, have fun burning in hell.

rabzy:


There is no historical record of socrates, alexander the great etc but what people that came after them wrote and what their followers wrote. but there is little doubt that these two people lived.

sir, those philosophers lived and existed a clear evidence was their pictures and the works which they done and known for....look on the web

Instruments of the Devil. What's your business with whether Jesus existed or not. You have your own god and deity yourself - your 'idealism and your devilish principles'. If you are going to hell, go alone and do not try to take people with you.

plaetton:


A pile of dung.
You have presented nothing in the form of evidence except to quote from people who share your beliefs.
That is a pathetic.
.

And who have you quoted from...from people who share my beliefs?

Am quoting independent sources which have analyzed the general consensus amongst all scholars both for and against.

ifeness:


Apparently the sources of the stories about Jesus ain't reliable,not to talk of the supernatural powers attributed to him. There should have been some paintings,drawings by people who actually witnessed to alleged miracles he performed. I wanna believe some of his audience were artists,writers or poets who should have written something down about this weird character.

Just as science and technology is not reliant on the Bible for explanation of the Universe, we should see the bible or the stories about Jesus as genuine.

And how many paintings and drawings in that era survived to our day. do you have paintings of Pilate, Herod Agrippa, Antipas, Ptolemy, survived to our day. How many paintings of famous Jews drawn when they were alive survive to our days.

asala1:


Do you really believe someone will just take a pen and write this beautiful story about Jesus Christ?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for me, human sacrifice and blood cleansing rituals are not exactly beautiful topics.

Why are still looking for the living among the dead?
Well, I don't blame you. If only you have ever had personal encounter with Him, the way I had, you would not be embarking on this unnecessary fretting of the spirit?

The gospel of Mark (which is the main source for the other three) is basically an allegorical story used to push the idea that the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple by the Romans was a punishment from god for he Jews' sins. Many of the old testament prophets also said the same thing about the previous disasters that be fell the Jewish people. Pontius Pilate was a well know (and thoroughly hated) figure among the Jews in the late 1st century when Mark, Matthew and Luke were written so its not surprising he was included in the story. The best way of thinking about the gospel of Mark (and also Acts of the Apostles) is as a historical novel by a writer pushing an agenda. You can see from the way the writer links every single thing Jesus did to passages in the greek old testament (including ones that were mistranslated). Later the story was historicized and Christians later started insisting that Jesus actually existed.

The problem with the historicity of Jesus is that even if it is impossible to disprove that a minor pacifist rabbi called Joshua was executed during Pilate's reign it is very easy to prove that one of the notable miracles attributed are likely to have happened. The story of the star settling over Bethlehem is clearly nonsense, Bethlehem Epathah was abandoned at the time Jesus would have been born, Nazareth likely never existed as a town until 300 years later, the "sea" of Galilee is far too small to have had a storm capable of capsizing a ship, there was never any midday darkness or earthquake at any time during Pilate's reign, and the curtain in the temple was never torn until the day it was destroyed. Not a single one of the signs and wonders attributed to Jesus or his disciples was ever recorded by any non Christian source.

Many of the notable miracles in the new testament were so big that had they actually happened it would have Ben unthinkable for not a single one of the many writers living in the area at the time to have mentioned them. That alone proves that the gospels are suspect.

EvilBrain1:
The gospel of Mark (which is the main source for the other three) is basically an allegorical story used to push the idea that the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple by the Romans was a punishment from god for he Jews' sins. Many of the old testament prophets also said the same thing about the previous disasters that be fell the Jewish people. Pontius Pilate was a well know (and thoroughly hated) figure among the Jews in the late 1st century when Mark, Matthew and Luke were written so its not surprising he was included in the story. The best way of thinking about the gospel of Mark (and also Acts of the Apostles) is as a historical novel by a writer pushing an agenda. You can see from the way the writer links every single thing Jesus did to passages in the greek old testament (including ones that were mistranslated). Later the story was historicized and Christians later started insisting that Jesus actually existed.

The problem with the historicity of Jesus is that even if it is impossible to disprove that a minor pacifist rabbi called Joshua was executed during Pilate's reign it is very easy to prove that one of the notable miracles attributed are likely to have happened. The story of the star settling over Bethlehem is clearly nonsense, Bethlehem Epathah was abandoned at the time Jesus would have been born, Nazareth likely never existed as a town until 300 years later, the "sea" of Galilee is far too small to have had a storm capable of capsizing a ship, there was never any midday darkness or earthquake at any time during Pilate's reign, and the curtain in the temple was never torn until the day it was destroyed. Not a single one of the signs and wonders attributed to Jesus or his disciples was ever recorded by any non Christian source.

Many of the notable miracles in the new testament were so big that had they actually happened it would have Ben unthinkable for not a single one of the many writers living in the area at the time to have mentioned them. That alone proves that the gospels are suspect.

There is no backing for all what you said about, these are just hypothesis thought up by higher critics and scholars. There is no conclusive evidence that mark was the first of the gospels. It would be very difficult to include pilate a well-known historical figure, the chief priests caiaphas, anna and other historical figure and accuse them of condemning Jesus if it was not a fact. There are thousands of people who would refute the story. If God had been punishing them in such a way thru their history, so why cant the same happen in this case too.

The story of the star would be nonsense if it was an actual celestial body, but it is just a sign visible only to a pagan astrologers (who are always looking for signs in the sky) used by satan to lead them to the enemy of christ. what evidence do you have to show bethlehem was deserted at that time and nazareth was non-existent.

The belief that Nazareth never existed until 300 years later is very laughable. Critics are just throwing up different stuffs just to cast doubt on the existence of Jesus. Just a little search online would throw up evidences that Nazareth existed long before Jesus came but it was a small insignificant village of very small population.

James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea."[37] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ as "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to "a maximum of about 480."[38] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth.

In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approximately 100 m × 150 m (328.08 ft × 492.13 ft) on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology", carried out extensive excavation of this "Venerated Area" from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.

For me the greatest evidence is that by the 50-70 CE, followers of christ has become well-known, they were known as followers of Jesus the nazarene. In the trials of xtians such as polycarp, the place of Jesus birth was often mentioned. Never did the Romans or the Jews ever said the place never existed, it would have been far easier to point out to everybody that the religion was based on a lie, rather the little band of xtians kept increasing in numbers until the mighty Roman empire felt threatened.

How could Nazareth exist 300 years later when, xtians have been crying their voice hoarse that they are followers of Jesus the nazarene, and the gospels detailing the location of this place has been in circulation in all judea for about 200 years. You cant get away with such lies with the jews and Romans. Details of the trials of the early xtians and what they were accused of by the Romans is very very available, not once did they ever say such a person never existed nor the place where it is claimed he came from.