(December 11, 2009 at 11:56 pm)tackattack Wrote: fact being the burden of evidence is an overwhelming majority that he did exist? Yes then. You're not really giving evidence that he doesn't exists, you're just discrediting entire doctrines and documentation accross multiple regions and faiths because some unrelated facts didn't add up elswhere in the documents? I'm trying to understand.
No, i am saying that i am not sure whether or not Jesus did exist - what i am saying is testimony from non-contemporary authors is not sufficient for reaching any level of certainty, just like the non-contemporary sources for the existence of Horus do not allow you with any real certainty to state whether or not he existed.
As for why i find it unlikely that Jesus existed, it has to do with the massive events that are reported inconsistently amongst the testimony. How could 2 people believe that the world went dark for 3 hours when another mentions nothing at all of the blackout and instead claimed that at the tomb was an angel and an earthquake that shook the entire region?
Why do Mary and James suddenly disappear from the bible completely after acts when they were supposedly amongst the early Christian preachers?
Why, when peter was on trial under both Jewish and Roman courts was life of the man Jesus never bought into question? No mention of the empty tomb when stealing a body was a crime punishable by death? No mention of punishment for proclaiming a mortal man as king? If the court documents from the time make one thing clear it is that Peter was only ever bought to trial because of disagreement with mainstream jewish teachings and nothing to do with the man Jesus who supposedly did so much to anger the Jews and Pontious Pilot.
Every time peter was bought trial before the romans he was released because in their minds he did nothing other than offend a bunch of Jews who disagreed with him.
.
