Caesar

Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great existed just as well as Jesus did.

No, what the meme says is actually true.

There are in depth understandings for those who wish to dig...The Greek word for “first” in Luke 2:2 is protos and can be translated “before.” Thus Luke 2:2 could actually be translated, “This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
Another explanation could be, Quirinius actually ruled Syria on two separate occasions and there were actually two censuses taken. The “first census” mentioned in Luke 2:2 occurred during his first term as governor, and another was ordered during his second term as governor mentioned in Acts 5:37, which probably took place between AD 6-7 (Josephus links this census to an uprising under Judas of Galilee). With Luke being the author of both Luke and Acts and wanting to write in “consecutive order” (Luke 1:3), it would seem unlikely for Luke to make such a mistake in dating.

There is a long list of famous historians, including Roman ones, that risked their reputations and in some cases, their very lives, on reporting the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Pliny the Younger (62-114AD)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (75-130AD)
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120AD)
Pontius Pilate’s wife’s written letter Recollections of the last occurrences from the Life of Jesus Christ.
Publius Lentulus (ruler of Judea) wrote a letter to Roman emperor Tiberius (resides in a private library in England, found 1865 AD).
Pontius Pilate, Roman governor, wrote a report to Roman Caesar Tiberius in Jerusalem.
Celsus (170 AD)
Lucian of Samoset (160 AD)
Tacitus (70 AD)
Others included Africanus, Origen, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Eusebius of Caesarea, and even the Syrian philosopher, Mara Bar-Serapion.

It really boils down to this, a quote by Basal Pascal, who sums it up beautifully..."In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." For believers the question is, "why do you want to believe?" for non believers, it is, "why do you not want to believe?" There are answers to those questions, gotta dig deep and soul search!

Good, thoughtful, and fair question. All one needs to do is look around them to see the complexities of life and nature...and the astronomical odds against all of it just coming together by chance, without a designer. Those are some pretty big odds, when you really have an understanding of just how complex the universe really is, and our relationship to it. Once a belief in God is attributed to such overwhelming "awesomeness" ...then it becomes a matter of which God, which truth claim; and the journey ensues. I did not grow up with any religion, really. So, I was a clean slate, so to speak...and have done comparative analysis of the truth claims of world religions. Christianity stands out singularly amongst all others...for it is the only religion whom's afterlife promise is not dependent on our works or good deeds. THIS has the ring of truth, and this is what sets Christianity apart from all others.

Evolutionary theory cannot prove, that God does not exist, any more than Christian apologetics proves, that God does exist. An agnostic is more honest in his truth claim than an atheist, for at least he has enough understanding, to admit this fact.

Even those who espouse no faith, demonstrate it everyday, in some form or fashion. I have faith that my car will start when I go to work in the morning, but I cannot really know for certain that it will. I have faith that the electric bill I put in the mail yesterday will reach the electric company, but I can't say for certain that it will. I don't believe the claims of atheism are supported by the evidence. So called evidences, are widely interpreted among scientists and scholars. It is impossible to prove God does not exist. So, when one chooses atheism, it does come down to desire...don't kid yourself.

This resembles a Got Questions Ministries article nearly word for word.

I'm not even religious and I believe Jesus existed

not the bible one. but their is a soccer player named Jesus

But zero evidence for a god. I read a story where thunder was actually just a guy with a big hammer. So I guess that settles it?

There is no sentence that is more incorrect than the first sentence of your comment. You also started it with a conjunction.

It doesn't matter if you believe a person existed. You can have sources which mention those people and it's the historians task to judge how reliable those sources are.
The Bible is, btw, not that much of a reliable source in many ways.
Especially in the old testament, there are SO MANY STORIES copied from the Babylonian myths.

You can believe in God and being Christian and stuff.
But please stop confusing facts with faith. It's annoying.
If facts don't fit your belief alter your belief. The most annoying thing, eg, is that some fundamentalists think, that accepting the matter of fact about evolution means you don't believe God created the world. Or think that the Bible was written by God. Do you even know how many people did translate that thing? Saying, that God was steering them while there could be no bad people... Man. It's ridiculous.

But yeah, the copies of a book make it more reliable. Hitler was right, as he sold so many copies of his book, than. Great.
It feels like talking to a teenager who discovered just recently the internet.

I believe he was, but not everyone does.

There are many documents, manuscripts and fragments of the Bible, Old and New Testament, in addition to secular sources that speak of Christ’s resurrection. This contrasts with relatively few documents about some historical figures such as Julius Caesar. God has ensured that the historical record of Christ’s resurrection would be preserved accurately for us. Paul’s first letter to the congregation in Corinth can be dated to around 25 years after Jesus’ resurrection. The dates of these records are consistent with being able to speak authoritatively on Christ’s resurrection. In the Gospels, Acts and Paul’s letters, it is evident that many people were alive who could have disputed the facts provided by the New Testament writers if the details were wrong. Instead, there is agreement and consistency in what we are told. Former persecutors and detractors like Paul (previously Saul) did not dispute the records. Christians were willing to live under the constant threat of death—which would have been unthinkable unless they were convinced that Jesus was not a charlatan.

I hear you. I personally believe, that like all stories, over time people change the story slightly. Those slight changes, over time become exponential. Then, the final story you hear so long after the first recording and telling of the story is dradtically different than it was in the beginning.

I understand what your saying...There is alot of debate as to which bible versions best preserve the Word of God. Some passages may be affected by variant readings, but do not affect any major doctrine, and do not change the biblical message. We should focus on the amazing similarities of the texts, and their ability to communicate the gospel, rather than focusing on their dissimilarities, which are often trivial. God has preserved His Word through the ages. We may debate the wording in a few passages, but the fact remains, that the text is unanimously supported by all ancient manuscripts. The Dead Sea scrolls (including Old testament texts) which date back from 250 BCE-70CE were rediscovered in 1947. These scrolls have confirmed the accuracy of the copies (Masoretic text, Hebrew OT), written 1000 years later. We CAN be rest assured that we have the accurate, revealed words of God passed down to us.