As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Historical Evidence of Jesus?

BroloBrolo BroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
edited December 2006 in Debate and/or Discourse
Note: Originally I was going to put this thread in H/A, but because of the subject matter that will almost certainly lead to a debate, I figured D&D would be a better place for it. Feel free to argue this one out.

I'm looking for vetted, empirical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Finding information on this subject is more difficult than I thought, as everyone seems to have some kind of bias on the matter, and for many of the reports that provide cited proof that Jesus did exist, others make the counter claim that said proof is inconclusive at best. Heck, I've read two essays where people use the exact same census to claim Jesus did and didn't exist.

The best I can hope for is a verified account of the crucifiction by the Romans, written as the trial and execution took place - if the events that took place in the New Testament are true, they probably did document that a radical Jewish carpenter's movement was put down, and that the man responsible was nailed to a cross.

As I'm a little naive here, and about as far away from being a Christian scholar as you get, I could use a little help. This subject is a difficult one, but the results have a lot of potential: Jesus is unequivocally the most important figure in recorded history (feel free to argue that too), and people still can't agree whether he even existed.

So if we did go back in time some ~2000 years, what do you think would be going on in Jerusalem?

Brolo on
«13456

Posts

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Wait, are there actually *any* records of who got crucified for what in the Roman Empire?

    Aldo on
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Aldo wrote:
    Wait, are there actually *any* records of who got crucified for what in the Roman Empire?

    Apparently they did keep some pretty good records of who, at the very least, although the "for what" bits I'm not sure about.

    Also, forgot to mention that I'm going to be away from the PC until 9:00 pm or so tonight, so I won't be contributing much to this thread until later on.

    Brolo on
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2006
    Oh... Science H. Logic...

    LondonBridge on
  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Rolo wrote:
    Poast

    I always figured that since 3 major religions mention a "Jesus Christ", along the same timeline, and all 3 major religions have that he was crucified, then for me one did exist.

    I thought most people accepted that Jesus was real, just most argued over what importance he was.

    Evigilant on
    XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • aquabataquabat Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I guess the easiest one is this at wiki

    aquabat on
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Let me just go to my filing cabinet ... ah, yes, here we go, historical records of the roman empire pre-Nero.

    Seriously, you're not going to get your hands on primary documentation. Without spending time and money, you're not even going to get your hands on reliable translations or secondary sources, and even the latter would just put you back in the disputation game, with people writing to further an agenda of one kind or another. So I'm curious as to what, exactly, you want us to suggest - cheap flights to Jerusalem, perhaps? Names of reputable rabbinical and biblical scholars? Books? Because your OP sounds like you want to do some original research, and that is indeed remarkably naive.

    tynic on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    The problem with written accounts is that once all the major players are dead, everybody and their brother is free to "expand" and "elucidate" and "annotate" the everliving fuck out of the history books as they're copied. This isn't even necessarily done deliberately; there are plenty of things that started as readers' notes and palimpsests and authors' disclaimers that have made it into the next copy as text because of a careless or confused scribe. When you factor in the likelihood that a decent portion of copies were made due to degradation of or damage to the original, and that a huge portion of our texts concerning these matters were preserved by people with a vested interest in confirming or a wholehearted belief that everything went down the way the Bible said, the whole thing turns into a giant game of telephone.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Here you go:

    [quote=matthew 2:11]On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.[/quote]

    moniker on
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    'opened their treasures' sounds like a euphamism for something dirty.

    tynic on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    tynic wrote:
    'opened their treasures' sounds like a euphamism for something dirty.
    The original isn't like that at all. It just says they dropped their trousers and showed everybody their penises, presumably so the holy child could bless them.

    Fun fact: excessive camel-riding can cause sterility and erectile dysfunction.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    That's not fun at all!

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Well, it's kind of fun, since it explains the phenomenon described by Saint Agenor of Hippo in Lesser Writings of the Early Saints (compiled by Polycarp the Younger), in which the wise men were cured of their affliction by their faith and the power of god, begot twelve sons apiece while in Bethlehem, and then committed some unnamed sin on the way home, causing their healing to be undone. The silly old bastard mistook the natural action of the camel's spine and insufficient saddle-padding for the will of God.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • WalterWalter Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Back when I was working on my Latin minor I remember translating some letters between a governor and an emporer concerning the cult that had sprung up around Jesus. Wish I could be of more help, its been a real long time. Its out there, keep looking.

    Walter on
  • OverlardOverlard Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I keep being told that there's more physical evidence of the existance of Jesus than Julius Caesar.

    I'm fairly sure there's more physical evidence of the existance of Joss Whedon than either of the other two, but you won't find me worshipping him either.

    Maybe a little. And he'd have to buy me breakfast.

    Overlard on
    mario.png
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Overlard wrote:
    I keep being told that there's more physical evidence of the existance of Jesus than Julius Caesar.

    I'm fairly sure there's more physical evidence of the existance of Joss Whedon than either of the other two, but you won't find me worshipping him either.

    Maybe a little. And he'd have to buy me breakfast.

    I've heard that before, but it makes little sense...don't we have writings of Caesar himself?

    Vincent Grayson on
  • OverlardOverlard Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Overlard wrote:
    I keep being told that there's more physical evidence of the existance of Jesus than Julius Caesar.

    I'm fairly sure there's more physical evidence of the existance of Joss Whedon than either of the other two, but you won't find me worshipping him either.

    Maybe a little. And he'd have to buy me breakfast.

    I've heard that before, but it makes little sense...don't we have writings of Caesar himself?
    Probably, but can we trust them? He was italian after all, and probably had mafia connections.

    Overlard on
    mario.png
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Overlard wrote:
    I keep being told that there's more physical evidence of the existance of Jesus than Julius Caesar.

    I'm fairly sure there's more physical evidence of the existance of Joss Whedon than either of the other two, but you won't find me worshipping him either.

    Maybe a little. And he'd have to buy me breakfast.

    I've heard that before, but it makes little sense...don't we have writings of Caesar himself?
    Yes, but you have to consider the fact that Gaul might have burned itself down, and the Romans decided to take credit by sneaking into foreign lands and throwing a lot of Roman armor and weapons into the ashes, then commissioning somebody to write bogus memoirs.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • ToadTheMushroomToadTheMushroom Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    There might be no evidence at all for his existence, as if you dismiss Caesar's own writings as evidence of himself, then only the physical remains of Jesus can be vetted as evidence.

    Despite the fact that gazillions of human beings believe in his existence, devine or not, and the Bible being a conglomeration of a vast amount of testimonies of many many individuals who met/knew about Jesus, there will never be definitive prove.

    I guess we should all just have a little faith that he was real and go from there.

    I don't doubt Jesus existed, heck, it would take a LOT to conjure a story as his without some basis in truth or fact, but I doubt he was a divine being, as in the son of god. I would say I am perhaps halfway between an atheist and a Christian, as I fully believe that Jesus existed and his teachings were real and the whole NEw Testament happened, but the religions parts, like water to wine, feeding thousands with fish and bread, or the ascension probably didn't happen.

    ToadTheMushroom on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Major problem with relying on NT writings as evidenceis the majority of the apostles were working class and doubtfully could have actually written the suff they're credited with. Chances are far better the "accounts" of jesus' life were actually written well after his death.

    nexuscrawler on
  • OverlardOverlard Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    There might be no evidence at all for his existence, as if you dismiss Caesar's own writings as evidence of himself, then only the physical remains of Jesus can be vetted as evidence.

    Despite the fact that gazillions of human beings believe in his existence, devine or not, and the Bible being a conglomeration of a vast amount of testimonies of many many individuals who met/knew about Jesus, there will never be definitive prove.

    I guess we should all just have a little faith that he was real and go from there.

    I don't doubt Jesus existed, heck, it would take a LOT to conjure a story as his without some basis in truth or fact, but I doubt he was a divine being, as in the son of god. I would say I am perhaps halfway between an atheist and a Christian, as I fully believe that Jesus existed and his teachings were real and the whole NEw Testament happened, but the religions parts, like water to wine, feeding thousands with fish and bread, or the ascension probably didn't happen.
    I've always thought of Jesus as a proto-hippy. He had some good ideas, and some great PR.

    Overlard on
    mario.png
  • GolemGolem of Sand Saint Joseph, MORegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Overlard wrote:
    There might be no evidence at all for his existence, as if you dismiss Caesar's own writings as evidence of himself, then only the physical remains of Jesus can be vetted as evidence.

    Despite the fact that gazillions of human beings believe in his existence, devine or not, and the Bible being a conglomeration of a vast amount of testimonies of many many individuals who met/knew about Jesus, there will never be definitive prove.

    I guess we should all just have a little faith that he was real and go from there.

    I don't doubt Jesus existed, heck, it would take a LOT to conjure a story as his without some basis in truth or fact, but I doubt he was a divine being, as in the son of god. I would say I am perhaps halfway between an atheist and a Christian, as I fully believe that Jesus existed and his teachings were real and the whole NEw Testament happened, but the religions parts, like water to wine, feeding thousands with fish and bread, or the ascension probably didn't happen.
    I've always thought of Jesus as a proto-hippy. He had some good ideas, and some great PR.

    I would have fired my agent after the whole cross thing though.

    Golem on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    There might be no evidence at all for his existence, as if you dismiss Caesar's own writings as evidence of himself, then only the physical remains of Jesus can be vetted as evidence.
    I think if one of the Gospels was "Letter to the City Jesus Just Put to the Torch, or, Let That Be a Lesson to You Ephesian Bastards," and there was archaeological evidence that a bunch of Hebrews carrying crosses had indeed sacked Ephesus at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived, you'd find a lot fewer people arguing that Jesus never existed. Wars leave a lot more independently-verifiable records of goings-on than peaceful religious movements.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I think the main problem is that for hundreds of years any dialogue that disagreed with the authority on Jesus at the time (the RCC) was immediately put down. Why did you need evidence for Jesus when the Church told you that he was in fact real and that you are in fact now going to die for questioning them. As the figurative and literal embodiment of the Church it was more important to preserve the idea of Jesus, son of God king of Heaven and Earth rather than Jesus, the bastard child of Mary, shitty carpenter and all around OK guy.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Crazy prophets were a dime a dozen back then. I seem to remember someone being interviewed in an episode of Bullshit! noting that there were many other people who made the very same claims Jesus did.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Gafoto wrote:
    Crazy prophets were a dime a dozen back then. I seem to remember someone being interviewed in an episode of Bullshit! noting that there were many other people who made the very same claims Jesus did.

    I thinkthis si summed up best in The Life of Brian where he accidentlly falls into the "crazy prophet" group.

    nexuscrawler on
  • bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Gafoto wrote:
    Crazy prophets were a dime a dozen back then. I seem to remember someone being interviewed in an episode of Bullshit! noting that there were many other people who made the very same claims Jesus did.
    And after Jesus' teachings caught on, everybody switched to making batshit claims about when he was coming back and whether or not he was touching them at night. The number of heterodoxies and heresies constantly cropping up is just nuts.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • NewresNewres Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Golem wrote:
    Overlard wrote:
    I've always thought of Jesus as a proto-hippy. He had some good ideas, and some great PR.

    I would have fired my agent after the whole cross thing though.

    Sigged :D

    About the OT I think what you ask is pretty much impossible. What you essentially need for such evidence is a verifiable original document describing the crucification/life of Jesus from a direct observer of somebody very close to him or her. And to quite honest such thing does not exist and if it would I think it would be considered a genuine miracle.

    Also read The Word by Irving Wallace, it is a pretty good book (as in pretty enjoyable read not scientific discussion) on this what-if subject....

    Newres on
    960751-1.png
  • SavedSaved Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    People like you guys make me sick.

    I read some of the posts on this board because I love PA but topics like this one DISGUST ME. you people had better shape up before you get shipped out.

    it's basic history that jesus existed. He's mentioned (and worshipped) by billions of people to this day. It's a simple fact that he lived and walked the earth - the bible documents his life in better detail than almost any other individual from this time period.

    Did Alexander the Great exist? How about William the Conqueror? There's less written about them than there is about Jesus. You guys don't seem to be in any hurry to dispute THEIR existence, but people insist on attacking ANYTHING christian these days simply out of spite. Jesus was greater than any of these men, and certainly a bigger influence on Western Society.

    All history is based on FAITH. If you're reading a book on the past you have to have FAITH that what you're being told is true, since it happened before you were around to experience it. There's no way to know any of it actually happened, or who made it happen. You simply have to accept that there are things in the past that you might not understand. Hmm, sounds a little familiar, doesn't it? Yet some people can't accept what's right in front of their noses.

    The idea that only an "elite few" know the "truth" about what happenned back then is just another atheist myth, chosen to stroke the egos of those too afraid to believe in god.

    Saved on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    There are no eyewitness records of Jesus. The gospels were written several decades after he bit the dust. Paul barely mentions his life or physical death (beyond its importance in his resurrection mythology) and regardless said he never met the guy.

    What we do have are several sources that talk about Jesus.

    • Josephus, a Jewish Roman historian writing about 68 A.D., mentions Jesus in his book The War of the Jews. There are some disputes about the translation of this passage (Christians like to trump it as Josephus claiming Jesus was certainly the messiah, which is not found in the Arabic translation). However, the entire passage is written in the context of Christian beliefs. It is not a firsthand account.

    • Tacitus, a Roman (I think he was some kind of magistrate) mentions Jesus around the same time as Jospheus. In a letter to the emperor, Tacitus talks about Christians and wonders what to do about them. Tacitus explicitly says that they worship a man named Jesus (or Christus) who was crucified under Pilate. (He also calls the religion a "mischevious superstition). Now, Tacitus may, like Josephus, be reporting and commenting on what Christians believe about Jesus, rather than submitting a verified account of what happened to Jesus.

    • I think one of the Plinys mentions Jesus as well.

    That's all I can remember from the first century. There is absolutely no surviving eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life or records of his death. If anyone says "but the gospels," I would ask them to explain why these unsigned, undated manuscripts whould be counted as eyewitness accounts: we don't know who wrote them or when they were written. (No, "The Gospel According to X" is not part of the original manuscripts, the titles were tacked on by much later church tradition).

    Qingu on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Oh my gods, we have our own uber-religious guy! How cute! And he's defensive to the max!

    Fencingsax on
  • RenegadeDrizztRenegadeDrizzt Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    theSAVED wrote:
    All history is based on FAITH. If you're reading a book on the past you have to have FAITH that what you're being told is true, since it happened before you were around to experience it. There's no way to know any of it actually happened, or who made it happen. You simply have to accept that there are things in the past that you might not understand. Hmm, sounds a little familiar, doesn't it? Yet some people can't accept what's right in front of their noses.
    Err, there are plenty of ways to know what I'm being told is true. Generally, statements in history books are backed by large amounts of evidence and documentation. I'm not saying that this is the case for the historical evidence of Christ, but the Bible isn't necessarily the greatest source. Alexander the Great? William the Conquerer? Their existence isn't even arguable, because we have sufficient documentation to prove they existed.

    RenegadeDrizzt on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    theSAVED: do you believe that Hercules existed?

    How about Arjuna, hero of the Pandavas?

    Now, I do believe Jesus existed, I just dispute your assumption that "if a lot of people believe the person existed and there is a religion about the person then they must have existed."

    Qingu on
  • KMGorKMGor Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Did Alexander the Great exist? How about William the Conqueror? There's less written about them than there is about Jesus.

    .......do you really believe this? I'm not arguing against Jesus's historical existence, but please. There is simply no comparison between the amount of contemporary writings on Alexander VS Jesus. And William the Conquerer? His DIRECT DESCENDANT is the current queen of England.

    KMGor on
  • RenegadeDrizztRenegadeDrizzt Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    KMGor wrote:
    Did Alexander the Great exist? How about William the Conqueror? There's less written about them than there is about Jesus.

    .......do you really believe this? I'm not arguing against Jesus's historical existence, but please. There is simply no comparison between the amount of contemporary writings on Alexander VS Jesus. And William the Conquerer? His DIRECT DESCENDANT is the current queen of England.
    Someone get the bucket- SAVED is going to be sick!

    RenegadeDrizzt on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    the thing about rulers is they can more easily be traced because they had more tangible effects on the world. Someone used the example of Caeser becasue of the conquest of the Gauls. Same could be said of the William the Conquerer and the Frank invasion or Alexander the Great and Maecodonia. Furthermore ancient rulers tended to belong to lamrge families and thier lineages can more easily be traced.

    Jesus on the other hand was pretty much born, lived and died as a commoner. A commoner with alot of influence but a commoner nevertheless. That means historians wouldn't have noted his birth(like they would have noted the birth of a new emperor or noble). His lineage is also impossible to trace.

    nexuscrawler on
  • rchourchou Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    The majority of biblical scholars believe that Jesus existed. It really isn't something that's disputed; chalk up claims otherwise to a very vocal minority.

    There isn't much empirical proof otherwise, but I think Qingu summarized what little there is pretty well. I would also add, however, that even before the gospels were written, there was a very strong oral tradition about the teachings and actions of Jesus. This, in turn, helps explains the similarities between the synoptic gospels and John.

    It's a really interesting subject matter, and I would recommend taking a Historical Jesus class if you want to learn more about what Jesus probably did/did not do.

    rchou on
  • SavedSaved Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    theSAVED wrote:
    All history is based on FAITH. If you're reading a book on the past you have to have FAITH that what you're being told is true, since it happened before you were around to experience it. There's no way to know any of it actually happened, or who made it happen. You simply have to accept that there are things in the past that you might not understand. Hmm, sounds a little familiar, doesn't it? Yet some people can't accept what's right in front of their noses.
    Err, there are plenty of ways to know what I'm being told is true. Generally, statements in history books are backed by large amounts of evidence and documentation. I'm not saying that this is the case for the historical evidence of Christ, but the Bible isn't necessarily the greatest source. Alexander the Great? William the Conquerer? Their existence isn't even arguable, because we have sufficient documentation to prove they existed.

    yeah but there's even MORE proof that Jesus existed! Haven't you even HEARD of the bible?it's document after document of the amazing things that Jesus did and the many people he saved. You can't deny the evidence that has been PROVED to be truth.

    "Oh my gods, we have our own uber-religious guy! How cute! And he's defensive to the max!"

    I'm not super religious or anything like that, but you people honestly think you're too smart for your own good. You need to learn some COMMON SENSE and know that BILLIONS of people are probably going to be smarter than some misguided people on the internet.

    Saved on
  • KusuguttaiKusuguttai __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2006
    Major problem with relying on NT writings as evidenceis the majority of the apostles were working class and doubtfully could have actually written the suff they're credited with. Chances are far better the "accounts" of jesus' life were actually written well after his death.
    uh, that actually is what happened. none of them wrote the gospels during jesus' life

    Kusuguttai on
  • RenegadeDrizztRenegadeDrizzt Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    theSAVED wrote:
    theSAVED wrote:
    All history is based on FAITH. If you're reading a book on the past you have to have FAITH that what you're being told is true, since it happened before you were around to experience it. There's no way to know any of it actually happened, or who made it happen. You simply have to accept that there are things in the past that you might not understand. Hmm, sounds a little familiar, doesn't it? Yet some people can't accept what's right in front of their noses.
    Err, there are plenty of ways to know what I'm being told is true. Generally, statements in history books are backed by large amounts of evidence and documentation. I'm not saying that this is the case for the historical evidence of Christ, but the Bible isn't necessarily the greatest source. Alexander the Great? William the Conquerer? Their existence isn't even arguable, because we have sufficient documentation to prove they existed.

    yeah but there's even MORE proof that Jesus existed! Haven't you even HEARD of the bible?it's document after document of the amazing things that Jesus did and the many people he saved. You can't deny the evidence that has been PROVED to be truth.

    "Oh my gods, we have our own uber-religious guy! How cute! And he's defensive to the max!"
    See, that's the thing SAVED

    The Bible isn't an entirely accurate or credible source. What's not clicking here, buddy?

    RenegadeDrizzt on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    theSAVED wrote:
    theSAVED wrote:
    All history is based on FAITH. If you're reading a book on the past you have to have FAITH that what you're being told is true, since it happened before you were around to experience it. There's no way to know any of it actually happened, or who made it happen. You simply have to accept that there are things in the past that you might not understand. Hmm, sounds a little familiar, doesn't it? Yet some people can't accept what's right in front of their noses.
    Err, there are plenty of ways to know what I'm being told is true. Generally, statements in history books are backed by large amounts of evidence and documentation. I'm not saying that this is the case for the historical evidence of Christ, but the Bible isn't necessarily the greatest source. Alexander the Great? William the Conquerer? Their existence isn't even arguable, because we have sufficient documentation to prove they existed.

    yeah but there's even MORE proof that Jesus existed! Haven't you even HEARD of the bible?it's document after document of the amazing things that Jesus did and the many people he saved. You can't deny the evidence that has been PROVED to be truth.

    "Oh my gods, we have our own uber-religious guy! How cute! And he's defensive to the max!"

    I'm not super religious or anything like that, but you people honestly think you're too smart for your own good. You need to learn some COMMON SENSE and know that BILLIONS of people are probably going to be smarter than some misguided people on the internet.

    For some reason, many of us feel that the Bible has some bias that Jesus existed. Fancy That.

    Fencingsax on
This discussion has been closed.