Now this, Frens, is a serious CONUNDRUM!!🤔😂🤣
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
Meh...good try
Jesus = Historical figure
Santa Clause = Imaginary
Historical figure because a religious book says so?
Outside of the that, Jesus didn't exist.
lol...
Aside from the first and second hand eyewitness accounts, there are multiple external references to Jesus outside of the four Gospel accounts.
You, my friend, are in conflict with many well known, Atheist Historians who conclude the opposite.
You're argument is tantamount to saying "Aside from your eyewitnesses, you have no eyewitnesses!"
Air tight logic there.
By the way. it's a religious book that is the main reference for many Archeologists and Historians.
Don't be a Jesus Mythicist!
No, there's no evidence Jesus ever existed.
That wasn't a dark time in history either. It was very well recorded in the secular history books... No mention of a guy doing magic, except by Josephus and that accounts is shady at best.
Saying there is no evidence for Jesus is like saying there is no evidence for election fraud!
A Jesus Mythicist. The worst kind.
History denier.
Probably the most well attested historical figure from the first century. But no matter. You keep your Pastafarian beliefs close to your heart. We've been in verbal circles on this platform before. We can meet back to back in the streets defending freedom. Then we can sit down and hash out the small stuff.
So no God either? I suggest Pascal's wager.
Ask Josephus.
I did. He didn't know him either. He wrote about him though... Just like you and I are.
Tacitus was born in year 55... Jesus was allegedly crucified in year 30.
Thus Tacitus wasn't an eye-witness of Jesus.
Hearsay must be evidence to you.
No one said Tacitus was an "eyewitness."
Having a secular source mention Jesus (among others) only 20+ years after Jesus lived is enormous when discussing literature from early antiquity.
It's not hearsay - it's history.