A steering wheel that doesn’t come off while you’re driving.
A steering wheel that doesn’t come off while you’re driving.
I think it’s a weird to assume the wiki-link that you posted is in support of the “Christ Myth Theory” (as they call it).
Read the contents of the wiki link you sent and check all of the citations, you’ll see that the Christian Scholars that contributed to writing the article aim to dismiss the theory by citing their own books.
I’m not debating with you the question that was asked as to start this thread. It’s visible to literally anyone that looks it.
If you wanted to answer a question that was not asked by the OP, that’s on you.
Eminem claimed to be a Rap God though. Praise be onto him.
You suck ass at reading. The title of this post is asking about “Jesus Christ,” which we all know to mean the son of God and the guy that resurrected after 3 days.
Jesus Christ is very specific. Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was crucified and rose again on the third day… that is fake.
Seems likely. There’s probably a Rabbi named David somewhere today too.
I didn’t say the second one used “that name.” Read what I wrote.
I didn’t provide any article. I read the one you linked.
In this most recent response, you are annotating sources from 93, and 117. Those years are notably (at minimum) 60 years after the supposed resurrection; and as such are not first hand accounts.
They very likely was someone named Jesus, because there were many people with that name. There was very likely someone named Jesus that was crucified, because many people were crucified. There’s 0 evidence or recorded documentation that a resurrection ever happened. That’s the big one.
Wait… you mean to tell me there’s not a collective of atheist Wikipedia writers that have dedicated their lives to the absence of religion and citing themselves on refuting evidence on Wikipedia?!?
Wouldn’t it be weird of every Wikipedia article on the historical validity of Jesus was written by Christian scholars that have dedicated their lives to their religion? It would be wild if they were just citing themselves in these Wiki articles in order to sell some books, wouldn’t it?
It’s almost like Christian Scholars (people that have dedicated their entire lives to this idea) have access to write for Wikipedia too…
The citations are from the same people we see over and over again on this topic (specifically on Wikipedia).
There were a lot of people that shared that name, and a lot of people were crucified at that time.
The article you provided (if you read it) should actually serve to cast more doubt on the idea; it does not “answer the question to the affirmative.”
He was created by Roman elites in order to divide the Jews and get them to pay taxes.
Good writers don’t want to give Marvel their ideas or characters… so we just get dumb shit like Mary Jane as Jackpot now.
What year is this?!?
Maybe it would; I don’t think you get to decide.
The majority of
New Testament scholarspeople with an inherent pro-christian bias, that have dedicated their professional and academic lives to their religion, also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[51] but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.[52][53]…
That’s a new creative way to “tell me you didn’t read the link; without telling me you didn’t read the link.”
EDIT: Check the sources on these wikipedia articles… Every citation is from an author that has already made up their mind, and is writing for a similar audience. There’s an obvious pro-religion bias within every citation.
If God never answers the prayers of non-followers; he’s really not convincing anyone new that he exists.
deleted by creator