JJM: I don't want to be too hard on you. Are you maybe very young? Because you don't seem to know very much.
About the bible you mean. Give him the benefit of the doubt.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
JJM: I don't want to be too hard on you. Are you maybe very young? Because you don't seem to know very much.
I think you over looked this post.
Not surprising, though, since he'd have to read it to know that.Edited: Auto beat me to it.
But it's funny that he would cite a source that goes against what he is trying to claim.
Not surprising, though, since he'd have to read it to know that.
Edited: Auto beat me to it.
But it's funny that he would cite a source that goes against what he is trying to claim.
When did I say anything about a movie.
People seen first hand the miricles of Jesus and not only that but even if you look at sources outside of the Bible you will find mention of Jesus. Just study the Roman Empire and you will find mention of him.
What makes think their pastors know? Mine didn't. He firmly believed the resurrection was recorded in Roman records. But "Darwinist and god-haters like Gibbon" had erased the passages.
Which was what he was taught in seminary.
It makes me sad how little Christians know about their own religion. I think their pastors lie to them, and then leave them to expose their ignorance in public. JJM: There is not a single first-hand account by anyone who was even alive and met Jesus, let alone His miracles. That includes the gospels, which were written decades after His death. And no, the problem for Christians is that in point of fact there are no non-Biblical mentions of Jesus anywhere, including anywhere in the history of the Roman empire. Although you assert that if this existed it would be evidence for Christianity, somehow I have a feeling that the fact that it doesn't actually exist will not be taken by you as evidence against it. Am I right?
Hve you read the article for your self. Do that then tell me what you think.You call about.com a scholarly source?
Read the section Titled "Historicity?."I skimmed it, which I suspect is more than you did for either of the articles I posted.