Haselsh1
Shaun H
It's very easy to dispute the account because there is no proof.
Men can't do miracles.
Don't get me wrong... when I said there was quite a lot of evidence for a Jesus I was referring to archeological evidence and not the bible.
Contemporaries and those living shortly thereafter would have found it easy to contest, and we would have evidence of their denials that miracles were done. But no, the dispute centres on how were they done.
I've personally seen nothing that stands up to scrutiny about Jesus' life. That 150-200 year timeframe gives plenty of time for a folk law / myth to develop given short life-spans, poor education, low literacy etc, i.e. few folk had the ability to document anything accurately, it was just told word of mouth generation to generation.
I'm not looking to prove / disprove anything here as I don't buy religion in any shape or form, but it would be interesting to see what you considered as hard archaeological evidence for his existence, as I have to admit I've seen nothing yet, only evidence of a later religion.
Tony.
interesting that many saw him alive after he was crucified.
No they didn't.
If I claim that at Man Utd's last home match an alien landed on the pitch that's one person claiming it not 75,000.
Not yet, but it seems quite likely to happen at some point.Someone crucified David Blaine?
And only 4 written accounts, 3 of which are based oin the first!
Actually Paul refers to the 500 people seeing the resurrected Jesus in a letter written about the year 55 to Christians in Corinth. He makes the point that many of these eyewitnesses were still alive, and therefore could be questioned about it.
You don't seriously believe this nonsense, do you?