Actually the historical fact of Jesus existing as recorded in the new testament is really one of the better documented things from ancient history. Aside from the few references from extra-biblical historians; http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html There are are also a great deal of intrinsic proofs within the gospel records themselves that aren't blatantly apparent, but upon close examination give creedence to the existance and acts of Jesus.
yeah but does the possibility of blessing my spirit exist?Like boosting my spiritual rankings for my next life, if this is how it works??Lol because iam really greatful for my present situations Lol
really? that's funny i would have thought it the opposite and highly controversial, otherwise would not all historians be devout christian? oh wait thats right, its subject to much debate. i love how your websites claim that "most scholars agree" this. really? i didn't know christian websites were now the authority on scholarly opinion polls. ::yawn:: so does anyone have any non-christian/biased websites with historical references for the existence of a physical christ? especially ones that don't cite Josephus or Tacitus. one of which is probably a forgery. (hint: look at the usage of the word christos or chresteus) i avoid the two like meth addicted lepers. also your seutonius reference smells of a similar contradiction when he speaks of jews calling one "chresteus" which is a name that wasn't used until a hundred years after the 'death' of Jesus by greeks which means "anointed one". alas...i'm done critically thinking here. i'm just going to simply mirror your approach to this and just tell you with some imagined authority that it is undisputed that Jesus' existence is controversial. my retort is complete with a probably equally as biased link that i'm just going to throw in your face and expect you to take as ultimate authority. have a nice day. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
I agree about the lack of non-biased references, on both sides of the argument. I checked out the web site you linked and it is just as ludicrously biased and full of "altered" history as most Christian sites. There are fanatics in both camps. You made some very salient points about the nature of my posts and I agree to disagree on this topic. :cheers2:
