Christians - Aware you worship a virgin?

[theVOID]

As far as Jesus' divinity, Mark was based off of the eye witness accounts of peter and is the oldest of the Gospels I believe. Jesus refers to himself there as the "Son of Man". The son of man in my opinion is a title he uses to convey to the people of the time his intent. They had the old testament so in Daniel chapter 7 as a refrence with it's 4 beasts "premonition" from daniel followed by their destruction byth "son of man".

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

All of the books of the gospel reference Jesus from their perspective from my recollection. He refers to himself as I am, the old testament name for God, many times throughout the new testament. The Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, but not Jesus himself. The Antiquities of the Jews written some time before the year 100 references Jesus' career from the Jewish community. He is reffered to by tertullian in adversus marcionem as the bringer of light. I mean we might debate on who or what Jesus was but are we really going to argue his existance entirely?


"absolutely no contemporary sources to confirm his existence" That would be determinant on what you qualify as evidence. If I ever invent a time macine, I'll make sure to go back, get his picture and have him autograph it for you.

I'm not an expert on the historicity of Jesus, but a new talk was posted recently that summarizes some of the concerns i have with the claim of his existence.

Neither am I. My point was I treats each of the gospels as a seperate account. I treat the torah and quran as a seperate account.
I treat the the asian account (I haven't studied too much but I believe a lot was done by new zealanders (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapt...553&C=1360) as a seperate one too. If all of theese different interpretations differered totally on every fact. They would all still reference Jesus Christ, a man who claimed to be the son of God. If you're going to discount documents written about christianinty by christians based solely on your distrust of christians, why do you expect christians to believe counter God science written or calsulated by atheists?

There are tons of different documents from independent authors outside the book of the dead that speak of Horus as a real man too, does that mean we he was also a real historical figure? It's the same standard of evidence as for Jesus, that being decades of hearsay written down by people who weren't eye witnesses. If you find that same standard of evidence convincing for Jesus the why not Horus?