Religion is a hypothesis.

rcn10ec · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from kut2k2:

Of course Christians were real. Without Christians there would be no Christianity.

The question is about Jesus. Tacitus did not live during the time of Jesus; he was born over two decades after Jesus' alleged crucifixion (and resurrection). Why was no historical record made during the lifetime of Jesus? Not just by the Romans, not even by the Christians themselves. The earliest Gospel wasn't written until at least a quarter century after the life of Jesus:

"Scholars generally date the synoptic gospels as having been written after the epistles of Paul and before the gospel according to John, thus between 60 and 115 AD."

So Paul, who admits never having met Jesus during his life, was writing about Jesus before the so-called Apostles who actually lived with Jesus. How interesting, or, as ET theists might put it, how convenient!

I was replying to your statement..."There's no record of such a person in the Roman records, and the Romans kept better records than the Jews...", which is incorrect.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that since no documents have yet been found that were written during the same timeframe that Jesus walked the earth as a good reason to not believe He even existed at all. Is that a very good reason to discredit what has been written about Him?

The New Testament manuscripts go back closer in time to the originals than for any other ancient documents. Compare that with these examples:

Plato wrote his Tetralogies in 427-347 BC yet the earliest manuscripts we have date to 900 AD - a 1200 year gap. Aristotle wrote between 384-322 BC but the earliest manuscripts we have are from 1100 AD â a 1400 year gap. Suetonius wrote his De Vita Caeasarun = 75 AD - 160 AD, earliest manuscripts found = 950 AD - an 800 year gap. Etc, etc, etc... There are lots more, but you see where I'm coming from.
The New Testament, which was written between 50 â 100AD, and the earliest manuscripts we have are from 125AD â a gap of only 25 years.
It's just something to think about.

RC

kut2k2 · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from rcn10ec:

I was replying to your statement..."There's no record of such a person in the Roman records, and the Romans kept better records than the Jews...", which is incorrect.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that since no documents have yet been found that were written during the same timeframe that Jesus walked the earth as a good reason to not believe He even existed at all. Is that a very good reason to discredit what has been written about Him?

The New Testament manuscripts go back closer in time to the originals than for any other ancient documents. Compare that with these examples:

Plato wrote his Tetralogies in 427-347 BC yet the earliest manuscripts we have date to 900 AD - a 1200 year gap. Aristotle wrote between 384-322 BC but the earliest manuscripts we have are from 1100 AD â a 1400 year gap. Suetonius wrote his De Vita Caeasarun = 75 AD - 160 AD, earliest manuscripts found = 950 AD - an 800 year gap. Etc, etc, etc... There are lots more, but you see where I'm coming from.
The New Testament, which was written between 50 â 100AD, and the earliest manuscripts we have are from 125AD â a gap of only 25 years.
It's just something to think about. RC

You are correct, there are Roman records. Just none contemporaneous with Jesus.

The difference between your examples and Jesus is that Jesus wrote nothing himself. Maybe the oldest surviving copies of Plato's writings are much after Plato's time, but the fact that nothing at all was written about Jesus until after his time makes it possible that Jesus is just a fictional character made up to please Jewish subjects under Roman tyranny. Like Robin Hood and King Arthur, there may be much to the legend of Jesus that is just make-believe.

killthesunshine · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Your argument below assumes that God is bound by space and time...

God, not bound by space and time can be simultaneously willing to prevent evil, capable of preventing evil, unwilling to prevent evil, and incapable of preventing evil...

Your dualistic mind is so lost when it comes to discussions of the transcendental...

your speaking nonsense now. nothing can be beyond space and time not even god.

OPTIONAL777 · Dec 20, 2009

Says who? You?

LOL!!!

Where exactly, and at what particular time does an idea not exist?

Where exactly, and at what particular time does an idea exist?

...now is the time, and this is the space for longshot to look like a fool...again.

Quote from killthesunshine:

your speaking nonsense now. nothing can be beyond space and time not even god.

jficquette · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from killthesunshine:

your speaking nonsense now. nothing can be beyond space and time not even god.

To may a statement like that when you have no clue as to the make up of Space or Time says it all.

killthesunshine · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from jficquette:

To may a statement like that when you have no clue as to the make up of Space or Time says it all.

space/time is everything that exists. nothing exists outside of it. that's a fact. to speak about beings outside space/time is gibberish.

Index piker · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from killthesunshine:

space/time is everything that exists. nothing exists outside of it. that's a fact. to speak about beings outside space/time is gibberish.

Silly boy we are not contemplating Bigfoot.

killthesunshine · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from Index piker:

Silly boy we are not contemplating Bigfoot.

both are non-existent imaginary inside of space/time as well as out

to speak of omnipotence anyway is just plain silly. how could YOU know omnipotence?

OPTIONAL777 · Dec 20, 2009

The flaw:

1. space/time is everything that exists. nothing exists outside of it.

2. that's a fact.

3. to speak about beings outside space/time is gibberish.

Now the rub:

4. Space and time could cease to exist.

5. Consequently space and time are not eternal.

6. Yet, space and time must have come from nothing because according to longshot there is nothing outside of space andtime.

7. Space and time came from nothing.

8. Therefore longshot believes space and time came from nothing.

9. Sure, thing, and rabbits are pulled out of hat from nothing...

LOL!!!

longshot has the mental and conceptual ideas of a 2X4...

Quote from killthesunshine:

space/time is everything that exists. nothing exists outside of it. that's a fact. to speak about beings outside space/time is gibberish.

killthesunshine · Dec 20, 2009

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

The flaw:

1. space/time is everything that exists. nothing exists outside of it.

2. that's a fact.

3. to speak about beings outside space/time is gibberish.

Now the rub:

4. Space and time could cease to exist.

5. Consequently space and time are not eternal.

6. Yet, space and time must have come from nothing because according to longshot there is nothing outside of space andtime.

7. Space and time came from nothing.

8. Therefore longshot believes space and time came from nothing.

9. Sure, thing, and rabbits are pulled out of hat from nothing...

LOL!!!

longshot has the mental and conceptual ideas of a 2X4...

i feel silly to even discuss this nonsense..

so, your argument is space/time could not arise from nothing therefore you believe in 'god' that preceded space/time but came from..what? if space/time could not arise from nothing how could 'god'?