http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar
Julius Caesar 7/13/100 BC to 3/15/44 BC. He was 56 years old when murdered by a group of conspirators. In addition, we have coins, statues, his own writings, the testimony of others both allies and opponents. Jesus exists in only one book.....much as Scarlett O'hara exists only in one book...Gone With The Wind. He is a character in a novel.
Your sources do not just "disagree" my friend. They tell two mutually exclusive stories. They contradict each other.
Let us assume you are a policeman called to the scene of a hit and run accident. You are told that there are two witnesses. You interview each separately.
The first tells you that the victim was struck by a blue car. The second tells you it was struck by a green car. Do you assume you are looking for
a) a blue car?
b) a green car?
c) disregard the witnesses as effectively useless?
Now, here's the scoop. I place little stock in ancient writing. Any of it, unless it can be confirmed by other sources or archaeology. Any king who puts up a victory stele is not going to give an unbiased account. I agree fully that Caesar's various memoirs are political documents. The notion that 250,000 Gauls materialized to relieve the siege of Alesia is laughable. Almost as laughable as the bible account of 185,000+ Assyrians laying siege to an insignificant shithole like 8th century BC Jerusalem. Or 2 million Persians invading Greece (Herodotus.) These numbers are obviously inflated and NONE of them are worth a damn. Archaeology has confirmed that Caesar did lay siege to Alesia but the rest of the story is sheer propaganda.
You have obviously concocted a whole scenario based on one novel none of which can be confirmed. These writings are of dubious authorship and generally date from much later periods. Further, they have been extensively edited (either accidentally or intentionally in cases...see Bart Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus") and are thus reflective of later political reality and have precious little to do with the first century AD.
BTW, "what" historical evidence is there for Mohammad? Much like your jesus...he seems to be an invention to personalize a cult.
Julius Caesar 7/13/100 BC to 3/15/44 BC. He was 56 years old when murdered by a group of conspirators. In addition, we have coins, statues, his own writings, the testimony of others both allies and opponents. Jesus exists in only one book.....much as Scarlett O'hara exists only in one book...Gone With The Wind. He is a character in a novel.
Your sources do not just "disagree" my friend. They tell two mutually exclusive stories. They contradict each other.
Let us assume you are a policeman called to the scene of a hit and run accident. You are told that there are two witnesses. You interview each separately.
The first tells you that the victim was struck by a blue car. The second tells you it was struck by a green car. Do you assume you are looking for
a) a blue car?
b) a green car?
c) disregard the witnesses as effectively useless?
Now, here's the scoop. I place little stock in ancient writing. Any of it, unless it can be confirmed by other sources or archaeology. Any king who puts up a victory stele is not going to give an unbiased account. I agree fully that Caesar's various memoirs are political documents. The notion that 250,000 Gauls materialized to relieve the siege of Alesia is laughable. Almost as laughable as the bible account of 185,000+ Assyrians laying siege to an insignificant shithole like 8th century BC Jerusalem. Or 2 million Persians invading Greece (Herodotus.) These numbers are obviously inflated and NONE of them are worth a damn. Archaeology has confirmed that Caesar did lay siege to Alesia but the rest of the story is sheer propaganda.
Quote:Besides, the apostles; their children, friends and followers were still around. Mark's Gospel apparently comes from the teachings of Peter, a witness to Jesus.
The Gospels are just as valid as the Hadiths, and you'd be a madman if you denied the historical existence of Muhammad (PBUH)
You have obviously concocted a whole scenario based on one novel none of which can be confirmed. These writings are of dubious authorship and generally date from much later periods. Further, they have been extensively edited (either accidentally or intentionally in cases...see Bart Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus") and are thus reflective of later political reality and have precious little to do with the first century AD.
BTW, "what" historical evidence is there for Mohammad? Much like your jesus...he seems to be an invention to personalize a cult.
