Holy shit.

PSA: Stop using the word troll. Vast majority of you have bastardized its original understanding.

F.ck you haters it was Jesus don't deny it. I have my opinion and I'm stating it. I also won't be returning to this forum to argue, so if you wanna flame that bad, just PM me.

What ever happened to Socrates? Show him some <3.

I never argued they were eyewitnesses. Not one of them did I say was an eyewitness. You also missed the point where most of the writings where there would have been an eye-witness account, were destroyed.

I know exactly what a citation is... At the time I was in a rush and posted based on what I could remeber...

I will get back to this though when I have some more time.

Socrates was a punk! lol jk He is actually one of my favorite philosophers, along with Voltaire

I didn't miss it...and it wasn't so much a point as you pulling the rug out from under your own argument. I guess I should also mention that plenty of historians were alive during the time period who, at best, had a vested interest in the coming of the messiah (e.g., Philo) and, at worst, would have had no reason to not mention the massive crowds, miracles, &c ad nauseum.
Oh, right, I asked you.

Jesus . . . not sure your Hoes would agree with that . . .

-i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section


Think You Watch Movies? http://www.halo3forum.com/showthread.php?t=81621

K so like, if they were destroyed, how do you know they would have even existed?

I mean, I'm sure Zeus' records were simply destroyed, but there were enough accounts of him coming down from the clouds to fuck some bitties that belief in him and his magnificent lightning rod may be validated.

cool story, bro. def read again

PSA: Stop using the word troll. Vast majority of you have bastardized its original understanding.

I will say I should have been more clear, I guess. But I did state it at the end, that I was giving you historians of that time period to show their belief in the man, not historians of today. Which is, or so I thought, the main point of the argument, historians believing or not believing that Jesus existed.

You are right about that, which is why I do find it a little odd that Jesus isn't mentioned more often, and I can't and no one person can argue that there is irrefutable evidence that Jesus existed. Obviously it adds to the mysticism of the man. But I can argue that there are accounts of him existing, athough, not first hand accounts (which I guess is what you thought I was posting) there are accounts from that time period written by historians. The problem lies with how some people have interpreted these historians. It depends on the answer your looking for and just like any religious text written from long ago, it can be translated differently. When I say translated, I'm also referring to how people take what it means.

Finally, I do apologize for that as well, I did immediately assume you were referring to me, and that was my fault. Made myself look silly a bit. Guess I should slow down from time to time.

By the way, thanks for actually knowing what you're talking about and not posting bullsh.t. I have gotten so used to it, I never really felt like there was a point in trying.

&If these firsthand accounts existed and were just destroyed, there would be sources that reference them before several hundred years after their alleged authorship.