Proving Jesus existed without the bible...

[4.6coupe]

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/

Did Jesus Really Exist? Where is the proof from non-Bible sources that he is real?
These questions and others like it are often asked by Bible skeptics and atheists alike. This article will show that not only is there historical evidence (from secular sources as well as Christian) that Jesus Christ was real and existed, but also that Jesus Christ is the most documented and historically verifiable figure in antiquity.
Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ’s Existence From Sources Outside the Bible
Non Biblical sources...

[racrguy]

Allow me to pick the bullshit apart.

First they try to use Flavius Josephus, who was born 3 years after the supposed death of Jesus. He couldn't have had first hand knowledge. All his claims can be dismissed because the Romans were very good historians and they didn't deem it necessary to write about this supposed magic dude.

Next. Waaaaiiiiit a minute. NONE of these guys were alive when jesus was alive, and they want to use their testimony as proof, with nothing else aiding it?

If this kind of evidence was brought before a judge he'd throw that shit out as heresay.

[The King]

Allow me to pick the bullshit apart

If this kind of evidence was brought before a judge he'd throw that shit out as heresay.

If you are going to claim the abilty to pick anything apart, the correct legal term is "hearsay". Suggest you not go into using your own words, you'll maybe look a little smarter if you go back to copying off of Google searches.

[zora04]

If you are going to claim the abilty to pick anything apart, the correct legal term is "hearsay". Suggest you not go into using your own words, you'll maybe look a little smarter if you go back to copying off of Google searches.

i though he was trying to say heresy

[racrguy]

If you are going to claim the abilty to pick anything apart, the correct legal term is "hearsay". Suggest you not go into using your own words, you'll maybe look a little smarter if you go back to copying off of Google searches.

Do you have anything of value to add?

[The King]

No, as you obviously did not as well. Difference is I didn't claim to be picking anything apart and then fall flat on my face like you just did in this thread.

FYI, your failure here isn't hearsay, rather it's all in your own words.

[SamTex]

There is nothing of any value here. I feel the value of my own opinion has diminished due to this post alone. FML.

[racrguy]

No, as you obviously did not as well. Difference is I didn't claim to be picking anything apart and then fall flat on my face like you just did in this thread.

FYI, your failure here isn't hearsay, rather it's all in your own words.

So, you think because someone made a typo their arguments are also wrong? Sure thing.

[The King]

It's not a typo. Hearsay is exactly what the two words "hear" and "say" mean. It's OK if you're too proud to admit you didn't know the root words of the term, LOL. After all, we hold your googled contributions here in such high regard and all.

[85whtgt]

Allow me to pick the bullshit apart.

First they try to use Flavius Josephus, who was born 3 years after the supposed death of Jesus. He couldn't have had first hand knowledge. All his claims can be dismissed because the Romans were very good historians and they didn't deem it necessary to write about this supposed magic dude.

Next. Waaaaiiiiit a minute. NONE of these guys were alive when jesus was alive, and they want to use their testimony as proof, with nothing else aiding it?

If this kind of evidence was brought before a judge he'd throw that shit out as heresay.

The Romans were persecuting christians at the time, why would they feel the need to chronical the existence of Jesus?


Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk 2

[racrguy]

The Romans were persecuting christians at the time, why would they feel the need to chronical the existence of Jesus?


Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk 2

By that reasoning, why would they chronicle all their wars?

By The King's reasoning, you spelled something wrong, so your entire statement is invalid.

[The King]

Good try at deflecting attention from your ignorance of legalese racrguy, but you are only making yourself into more of a clown by so doing. A proud clown, but still a clown.

[YALE]

The Romans were persecuting christians at the time, why would they feel the need to chronical the existence of Jesus?


Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk 2

How could the be persecuting Christians before the formation of Christianity? The Romans didn't start aggressively persecuting Christians until the second and third centuries, and more to the point, they generally kept good records of enemies. Failure to record an enemy indicates fear of that enemy, and the Romans weren't ever really afraid of Christians, or the larger community of Jews, for that matter.

[The King]

Nero outlawed Christianity well before the second and third centuries.

[slow06]

King - He spelled hearsay wrong, big deal. His point is clear: people born after Jesus' death aren't credible witnesses to his existence because they didn't witness anything, and no judge would accept that as evidence.

Either argue against his actual point or go away, but arguing about his spelling is flat out stupid and painful to read.