raptor asking questions

Moses & Abraham has doucumented history outside the Bible.. Mo has none

There's a woman in Congress who supports this though, I'll let you take a wild guess who she is.

No they don't

You should dig deeper & read more.

Do your own research

Would you like me to do some research too?
Hold on while I go look.

Yep, there is zero evidence that they existed anywhere outside of that book. And I don't mean just those two men, the stories and circumstances that go with them as well.

How about " I dont have any evidence"

Ok , so there’s no proof of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any historical figure because you say so. There is as much evidence that Jesus existed as any of those others.

The stories about Jesus were likely based on a real person (or persons), but there's no historical evidence he said or did the specific things in the Bible. But it's very inaccurate to say there's as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar

There is as much evidence if not more that he existed as there is for Alexander and Julius Caesar, or any other ancient historical figure you accept has existed.

Neither was anything about any of those other historical figures. Most were hundreds of years after.

Yeah, based on Buddha, Krishna, Mithra, Osiris...

You can argue that you can't have so many people in a religion centered around a figure that never existed. But then you can make that same argument for Santa Claus, because just as many people that believe in Jesus have believed that Santa Claus at least for a portion of their lives.

Very true

aye

No, there is not as much evidence that Jesus existed as there is for those actual historical figures because there is no evidence that Jesus existed.

Yes, there is plenty of historical evidence written closer to the time of his existence than most others. Including anti Christian writers.

“The idea that Jesus did not exist is a fringe theory, not held by virtually any scholar in the field, regardless of religious background.”
— Dr. Bart Ehrman, agnostic historian, author of Did Jesus Exist?

My gosh, those are SURVIVING accounts of Alexander the Great. They themselves had referred to original accounts from contemporaries of Alexander.

Only fragments exist of the original accounts. Other, harder evidence that isn't paper that provided away include coins that referred to Alexander.

My gosh except that’s not Alexander. It’s Heracles and Zeus

Who name is that?

Why the reference to Philip II, the father of someone who did not exist?

Good grief. You can't be serious.

Still waiting for that proof you were going to post of Jesus existing.

“Who name is that?

It says “of Alexander” not exactly proof, but I’m not disputing Alexander existed either. The question is about whether this is scientific proof of his existence and this coin is not.

“Why the reference to Philip II, the father of someone who did not exist?”

The only reference to Phillip is to refute that the image is Alexander. If you actually read the caption you would know that.

“Good grief. You can't be serious.”
I can read and comprehend what I read can’t you?

“Still waiting for that proof you were going to post of Jesus existing.”

There is the same proof as there is for Alexander. Historical accounts by historians and artifacts and archeology. The question of whether he existed wasn’t even questioned as even his enemies and detractors didn’t claim he didn’t exist. Yet here you are trying to perpetrate another fraud.

"I don't see no Alexander's name"

I don't see you posting any of this " just as much proof as there is of Alexander" proof of Jesus existing.

Gee surviving accounts that referred to contemporary accounts are proof. Just like Jesus.

Why didn’t you post a coin with Alexander the Great instead of Hercules and Zeus? Ancient Greeks as well so we are to believe that Zeus existed because there is a coin?

Apparently translators have difficulty with unusual lettering or spelling.
His name is rather thoroughly pointed out and explained in the image.

That historical proof of Jesus you were going to post?

You have to keep in mind that a lot of these sources simply mention that Christians as a group exist, and that they believed certain things, it doesn't provide actual evidence that Jesus himself existed

The same evidence that we have for Alexander the Great, and the others as well. Roman and Jewish and anti Christian accounts and historians closer to the time of his existence than most of the others. The greatest proof of his existence is Christianity itself that has survived over 2000 years of haters, persecutors, and naysayers.

While being a very predominate religion

sources*

Alexander the Great was pretty well known throughout the Old World. A lot. He was well documented at the time by contemporaries, and there's plenty of historical evidence that he lived, including coinage used then.

Somebody doesn't get blamed for ending the Iranian Empire (and conquering most of the Known World) and get called Alexander the Greek by them (they won't call him "Great") for the last 2500 years because he didn't exist. Nobody made up that he burned Persepolis down. The Ptolemy Dynasty wasn't a cute poem, and Alexandria and its library weren't located off of Exit 8 on the Highway to Heaven.

But it was only 90 years later, plus we have documentation of the sky turning black, earthquakes, and massive amount of zombies walking the Earth after Pilate let Jesus son of the Father go and crucified Jesus son of God the Father instead.

The source of what we know about Alexander the Great was written 400 years after his death. Most other figures mentioned were well over 100 years after his death so actually the account of Jesus is closer to his existence than the others.

“Good grief, guy, have you ever even looked at the book? Of course they weren't contemporaries. He never met Jesus. He never saw Jesus. You never heard anything about Jesus when Jesus was alive.”

Still waiting for you to post a contemporary account of Alexander the Great. Paul was closer to contemporary than anything you’ve posted as a contemporary of Alexander.

You dismiss historical evidence with a wave of the Atheist wand. Josephus and Tacitus give testament to his existence and most non atheist scholars agree Jesus existed. The proof is Christianity that only shines brighter when you try to extinguish it.

Still waiting for your post of a contemporary source for Alexander.

Ok, I'll play. Post it.

It'll wait.

“Contemporary. Contemporaries of Jesus.”

How about Paul? Was he contemporary enough? Now post the contemporary of Alexander’s writings.

The prevailing view among scholars who specialize in Bible studies, Jewish history, and Roman history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. You can refute it but you can’t disprove it because you hate it.

Good grief, guy, have you ever even looked at the book? Of course they weren't contemporaries. He never met Jesus. He never saw Jesus. You never heard anything about Jesus when Jesus was alive.

Paul is genius: If you can't beat them, make them join you.

Or like this fellow said,

"There is an old expression,

The fastest way to power is to find a parade, and put yourself at the front of it.

It appears that this is what Paul did with the Christian movement."

https://www.quora.com/profile/Earl-Blake-1

https://www.quora.com/Is-Christianity-an-invention-of-St-Paul

There are those who claim that Paul invented Jesus. He was the first one to write anything him, after all. A couple decades later.

But at some point out on that link, can't be, because Paul used to kill Christians, and he wrote that there was already a Christian sect going before he converted. But then we're going by Paul's words. On the other hand, as he did hijack what was going on before and corrupted it to suit his Roman agenda, seems like that scene may very well have been going on after all.

So it is plausible that Paul did not invent Jesus, but he did create Christianity, or at least recreated it in his own image.

Yes, the prevailing view among so-called Christian 'scientists' is that their subject of their worship is real. Shocker, I know.

Over a billion Indians acknowledge the existence of a blue elephant headed God. And that God existed long before Jesus, long before Judaism.
So did Krishna. Do you know whose life bears an uncanny resemblance to Krishna's life as a man? HINT: Rhymes with "Jesus"

Still waiting for that historical proof of Jesus that you've been saving for a special occasion.

“Apparently translators have difficulty with unusual lettering or spelling.
His name is rather thoroughly pointed out and explained in the image.

That historical proof of Jesus you were going to post?”

Ya you have to check on your translators because it simply says the inscription is “of Alexander” a very common name in Ancient Greece and Macedonia. It points out that the coin does not depict Alexander as many believed.

“Proof of Jesus's existence comes from the large number of early, independent Christian and non-Christian sources from the first and second centuries, which describe a Jewish man named Jesus who was executed by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Emperor Tiberius. While the Gospels provide the most detailed accounts, the historical consensus is supported by contemporary writers like Paul, Roman historians such as Tacitus, and Jewish historian Josephus, making him one of the best-documented figures of that era.”

“Non-Biblical Sources
Josephus: This Jewish historian wrote about Jesus, mentioning his crucifixion by the Romans and his followers.
Tacitus: This Roman historian wrote that the founder of Christianity, Christ, was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Pliny the Elder: This Roman official wrote about the Christians he encountered, noting their worship of Jesus as a god.
Mara bar Serapion: A Syriac philosopher, he mentioned Jesus in a letter written to his son.

The Talmud: This collection of Jewish writings contains references to Jesus that confirm his existence. “

Contemporary. Contemporaries of Jesus.

People writing nearly a century if not longer after about a cult centered around Jesus is not contemporary testimony of Jesus.

Josephus's reference to Jesus, for that matter, has all the appearances of a 4th Century interpolation.

Talmud references may have similarities, but they have not been confirmed as references to Jesus, or Yeshua, which was a pretty common name back then. After all, remember there were two of them who were supposed to be hung on the cross, Jesus son of God the Father, and Jesus son of the Father AKA Yeshua bar Abba AKA Barabbas.

I'll wait*

My gosh, as I type the correction, the auto car correct changed it to "It'll again.

“sources*

Alexander the Great was pretty well known throughout the Old World. A lot. He was well documented at the time by contemporaries”

All this activity depends on a fairly limited amount of ancient source material. Textual archival material is virtually limited to a scatter of Greek inscriptions and Babylonian records. Contemporary memoirs are known only from fragmentary quotations and more substantial summaries or reworkings written some three centuries or more after Alexander’s death. To this group belongs Arrian, though it may seem strange to label a text of the second century AD a primary source for a chapter of history of the period 336 to 323 BC.

https://blog.oup.com/2013/06/reign-alexander-the-great/