|
|
 Originally Posted by MNMP2
It is simply amazing how the normal rules of scholarly historical analysis are thrown out the window when dealing with the issue of Jesus Christ.
Actually, there are very few sceptics remaining that would contend that Jesus Christ is not a historical figure. Josephus, for one, refers to him in his writings. Luke especially is considered a very accurate and reliable historical writer, with many facts in his chapter being verified by archealogical findings thousands of years after the writing.
Ok, I'm with you so far.
In all seriousness, the only question remaining is whether or not he rose from the dead. If he did, then you have to contend with the fact that he proved himself to be the Son of God.
Ok, You've completely lost me now. You do realize that you come across as a bit of a lunatic when you drag "he rose from the dead" into the a discussion like this right? We are trying to establish the truth through reason and logic and here you are, trying to inject magic into the debate as if it stacks up to logic and reason.
Why would people that knew him personally accept death rather than denounce that fact? It is ridicuolous to think that anyone would knowingly die for a lie.....[/QUOTE]
I thought that it was established that it is unlikely that the gospels were written after the time of Christ.
|
Reply With Quote
