Originally posted by willRules
There are more historical documents to suggest the evidence of Jesus than Julius Caesar ✅
You have been reading way too much Christian propaganda. I believe that Jesus did exist, but there is not more historical documents to suggest the evidence of Jesus than Julius Caesar. 🙄
There are 16 historical documents to confirm the existence of Julius Caesar. Most of these are now copies which can be dated back to 900 AD ish and are in reference to a two year period of his life known as the Gaelic wars of 55 and 54 BC. As I think I have already mentioned in this thread there are 25,366 copies of the new testament composed in a form prior to format that collected it into the Bible of 66 books. There are estimated to be 56,000 copies in their original respective languages ✅
Originally posted by willRules
There are 16 historical documents to confirm the existence of Julius Caesar. Most of these are now copies which can be dated back to 900 AD ish and are in reference to a two year period of his life known as the Gaelic wars of 55 and 54 BC. As I think I have already mentioned in this thread there are 25,366 copies of the new testament composed in a form prior to format that collected it into the Bible of 66 books. There are estimated to be 56,000 copies in their original respective languages ✅
None of these 25,366 are historical text, though. Besides, the concept of the "Son of God" or "God man" predates Christianity.
Originally posted by willRules
There are 16 historical documents to confirm the existence of Julius Caesar. Most of these are now copies which can be dated back to 900 AD ish and are in reference to a two year period of his life known as the Gaelic wars of 55 and 54 BC. As I think I have already mentioned in this thread there are 25,366 copies of the new testament composed in a form prior to format that collected it into the Bible of 66 books. There are estimated to be 56,000 copies in their original respective languages ✅
How many historical buildings from the time of Jesus have his name written in stone? How many coins have his image on them?
Originally posted by willRulesNo, it's not. I've read it before the Dan Brown books came out. It's quite historical.
That's still very much speculation that has been fed mostly by Dan Brown in the recent years with his book ✅
None of these 25,366 are historical text, though. Besides, the concept of the "Son of God" or "God man" predates Christianity.Yes, I think its meaning is a person can be of flesh and be of god stated more clearly in the Gnostics. It's a desire to be closer to what god is. This is what James brother of Jesus was stating. However, those books were not included in the Cannon. It was James, not Paul that was to lead the faith and teaching of Jesus.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
None of these 25,366 are historical text, though. Besides, the concept of the "Son of God" or "God man" predates Christianity.
Well firstly I don't remember saying that the Son of God doesn't predate Christianity. There were numerous phrases which numerous religions of the time used, one of the most well known ones outside Christianity was Mithrasism (I don't know if I spelt that right 😮 ).
Secondly these 25,366 texts are a collection of original manuscripts or copies of the original scripts which can be dated by most historians to a time before the Bible was collected into it's 66 book format and most probably all before the time of Constantine or before the council of Nicea where the Bible was collected together ✅
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How many historical buildings from the time of Jesus have his name written in stone? How many coins have his image on them?
Why would there be? Despite the mass following Jesus gained, the majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah. Why would there suddenly be buildings and coins of him? That would imply some sort of military leader which is what some of the disciples believed Jesus to be originally ✅
As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more ✅
Originally posted by willRules
Why would there be? Despite the mass following Jesus gained, the majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah. Why would there suddenly be buildings and coins of him? That would imply some sort of military leader which is what some of the disciples believed Jesus to be originally ✅As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more ✅
That is actually a good answer. People who have their faces on coins and who have buildings named after them tend to be part of the establishment. Jesus was not.
Originally posted by willRules
Why would there be? Despite the mass following Jesus gained, the majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah. Why would there suddenly be buildings and coins of him? That would imply some sort of military leader which is what some of the disciples believed Jesus to be originally ✅As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more ✅
Well, you said there was more documentation of Jesus then Caesar, and I was showing you how wrong you are. Jesus was a revolutionary who was killed before he could over throw the Roman Empire.
Originally posted by willRules
Well firstly I don't remember saying that the Son of God doesn't predate Christianity. There were numerous phrases which numerous religions of the time used, one of the most well known ones outside Christianity was Mithrasism (I don't know if I spelt that right 😮 ).Secondly these 25,366 texts are a collection of original manuscripts or copies of the original scripts which can be dated by most historians to a time before the Bible was collected into it's 66 book format and most probably all before the time of Constantine or before the council of Nicea where the Bible was collected together ✅
That wasn't my point, these 25,366 aren't historical documents. Not one historian at the time mentions a Yasuah of Nazareth which was my point. Furthermore, unless all the documents are consistent and not contradictory. It's pointless to even mention them.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, you said there was more documentation of Jesus then Caesar, and I was showing you how wrong you are.
Originally posted by willRules
As for Caesar, well there would be more evidence, if the Roman's hadn't introduced the concept of Damnatio memoriae and now as much as I would love to know about Caeser, it's possible that the Romans themselves prevented us from learning more ✅
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
That wasn't my point, these 25,366 aren't historical documents. Not one historian at the time mentions a Yasuah of Nazareth which was my point. Furthermore, unless all the documents are consistent and not contradictory. It's pointless to even mention them.
Umm sorry, I'm a tad confused as to what you are saying? Historians at the time probably didn't mention Jesus, but the authors of Matthew, mark Luke and John did. If "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" weren't historians are you suggesting it's not a historical document? These are books of the new testament and are part of those 25,366 copies ✅
But that's my point. They must be consistent, otherwise they wouldn't be called copies of the new testament, they'd be called alternate versions of the new testament ✅ And having varying copies of supposed truth would not have helped the faith to grow like it did at that time ✅
Originally posted by willRules
Umm sorry, I'm a tad confused as to what you are saying? Historians at the time probably didn't mention Jesus, but the authors of Matthew, mark Luke and John did. If "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" weren't historians are you suggesting it's not a historical document? These are books of the new testament and are part of those 25,366 copies ✅But that's my point. They must be consistent, otherwise they wouldn't be called copies of the new testament, they'd be called alternate versions of the new testament ✅ And having varying copies of supposed truth would not have helped the faith to grow like it did at that time ✅
No, "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" did not write any books. The gospels were constructed from other books like the Q gospel. These are "History"; these are religious text. They support the Christian mythology.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, "Matt", "Mark, "Luke" and "John" did not write any books. The gospels were constructed from other books like the Q gospel. These are "History"; these are religious text. They support the Christian mythology.
Originally posted by willRules
I am very much aware of the fact that Mark was composed somewhere between 40 AD to 70 AD with Matt and Luke being around the 70 AD Mark and John a little later ✅I am also aware of the four source hypothesis that indicates that Matthew and Luke may have a similar source known as the Q document ✅ The Q document is still a matter of much debate (mostly over its existence) but the real question should be, assuming there is a Q document, would it make a difference? Many scholars still attest Mark was still composed as a separate source ✅