Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Is There Historical Evidence For The Life, Death And Resurrection Of Jesus Christ?

Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee referred to Jesus Christ in the book Jewish Antiquities. Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference. There Josephus said: “[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200) Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of “James, the brother of Jesus.”

The influence of Jesus’ existence was felt through the activities of his followers. When the apostle Paul was imprisoned in Rome about 59 C.E., the principal men of the Jews told him: “As regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:17-22) They called Jesus’ disciples “this sect.” If they were everywhere spoken against, secular historians would likely report about them, would they not? 

Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world’s greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero’s blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible.

Another writer who commented on Jesus’ followers was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia. In about the year 111 C.E., Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking how to handle Christians. People who were falsely accused of being Christians, wrote Pliny, would repeat an invocation to the gods and worship the statue of Trajan, just to prove that they were not Christians. Pliny continued: “There is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into any of these compliances.” That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him.

After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.” http://bit.ly/ZvQvvd


In fact, there is more historical evidence for the murder and resurrection of Christ than there is for evolution. Indeed, any denial of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection is comparable to denying the US declared its independence in 1776 or that Columbus landed in America in 1492.  

In his book "The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus", Michael Licona provides a list of scholars who attest to the historicity of Christ’s murder and resurrection which includes Brodeur, Collins, Conzelman, Fee, Gundry, Harris, Hayes, Hèring, Hurtado, Johnson, Kistemaker, Lockwood, Martin, Segal, Snyder, Thiselton, Witherington, and Wright.  

Concordantly, British scholar N. T. Wright states, "As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” (N. T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993)), p. 26.  

Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”(Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.)  

These are just a minute sampling of the research the massive throng of scholars who all attest to the historicity of Christ’s resurrection - http://amzn.to/13MQiTE 

Prominently, in his book, “Justifying Historical Descriptions”, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” passes all these tests:  

1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.  

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.  

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.  

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.  

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.  

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (1)-(5). Down through history various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection solution.

 

As an aside, when asked, “You accept the historical Jesus?”, Albert Einstein's reply was

“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

–Albert Einsteinfrom an interview with the Saturday Evening Post

maxximiliann maxximiliann 36-40, M 5 Responses Sep 22, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

Also in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich in 1952, Einstein wrote:

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

In 1954, Einstein wrote in response to Eric Gutkind:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

In 1929, Einstein wrote the following to rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic"


On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."


In "The World as I See It", Einstein wrote:

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

Why try and twist Einstein's opinions to fit your own delusion? Einstein rejected the notion of your god, calling it childlike. To say otherwise is just a dishonest lie.

I see what you're saying because all of the brilliant minds have been Atheist like these:

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Oh and, btw, did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx) Go figure! :)

And thank you for demonstrating my point even further. To rebut my demonstration of your quoting out of context fallacy, you attempt to save face by quote mining further, using an argument from authority fallacy to establish an argument from popularity fallacy? A fallacy on top of a fallacy, on top of a fallacy....and hardly evidence of anything other than a lack of credibility on your part. Einstein did not accept belief in your god, nor did he express an opinion that there was any logics to it, as you describe him as doing. Rather he said, in an interview as to the historical accuracies of the bible, that he truly did believe that the words describing Jesus, were talking of a real person, as the details, and fabrications of facts would not have been so extensive had it not been at least loosely based on a real person.

our attempts to establish a point by means of quoting only figures who share a similar belief to yours is exposed for the idiocy it is, when we look at the time in which these quotes were made:

***********************************************
1. "A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

Sir Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St. Alban (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626):

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon***

Quoting a man from a time in which people were actually being burned alive for denouncing your faith, is hardly evidence in favour of it. It is evidence of the corrupt oppression of your faith. Furthermore, quoting 400 year old quotes as some form of scientific merit is nothing short of laughable...unless you can demonstrate that no achievements in the fields of science have been made since before 1626. It is not surprising that the modern scientific community disagrees with you almost entirely.

Your attempt at establishing credibility in blindly following the beliefs of greater men than you is not only demonstrated as laughably foolish ignorance on its own, but by the fact that your argument defies reality. If you wish to establish that an argument from authority somehow verifies personal opinion, then you are venturing down a very losing path:

***http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html***

Polls of the members of the National Academy of Sciences shows that 93% of the scientists within, express no belief in a god. The number is even higher in the fields of biology and physics, with the vast majority of believers falling into the non pure science fields like mathematics. The number is also drastically higher among the leading members of their scientific fields, with nearly all rejecting the notion of a personal god.
***
If we take your tactic of quoting prominent scientific figures, only apply it not to men from 400 years ago, but to men alive today, or at least within recent times, we see a strikingly opposing view than you paint:

************************************************

Albert Einstein, Ph.D.: Alma mater: ETH Zurich (University of Zurich), Fields: Physics, Quantum physics. Awards: Nobel Prize in Physics, Copley Medal, Franklin Medal, Max Planck Medal, Matteucci Medal, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society:

Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true...

It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings...."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."


************************************************
Neil Degrasse Tyson, MPhil, Ph.D.: Alma mater: Columbia University (MPhil, Ph.D), University of Texas at Austin (MA), Harvard University (AB). Fields: Astrophysics, physical cosmology, science communication. Awards: NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal:

"And there is a threshold beyond which the extent to which you ascribe to religious doctrines can interfere with you being a scientist, and then that’s a problem. Then you’re disenfranchised from the enterprise of science, and I think that’s unfortunate for some home-schooled children who are kept out of mainstream schools because their parents are afraid of the influence evolution might have on them. I think the fastest rising demographic in the home-schooled community is the religious community, and it may be as many as half of all home-schooled children are home-schooled for religious reasons. If that’s the case, this is a population of students who’ll not be a part of the enterprise of science and discovery as we go into the future, and in a pluralistic elective democracy, that’s how this plays out, that’s how those chips fall."

"I can say, coming at it as a scientist, that if you want to feel the majesty of the Universe, you can do it – that’s something else that can help without reference to God."

************************************************
Richard Dawkins Ph.D, Sc.D.,FRS, FRSL, : Alma mater: Balliol College, Oxford, Fields: ethology, evolutionary biology. Awards: ZSL Silver Medal, Faraday Award, Michael Faraday Prize:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."

"Nothing is wrong with peace and love. It is all the more regrettable that so many of Christ's followers seem to disagree."

"If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists."

"It has become almost a cliche to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics."

"My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."

"The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture."
************************************************

Need we continue this foolish charade?

2. “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” - Werner Heisenberg

Werner Karl Heisenberg (5 December 1901 – 1 February 1976)

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg***

Heisenberg, a prominent figure in his time, and even today, no doubt believed in god...however, in terms of religion melding with, or being one with science, Heisenberg said:

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” (Heisenberg 1974, 213)

***So we can see that Heisenberg did not seem to be under the impression that religion is found within science. Rather his quotation you misrepresent is stating nothing more than his opinion in finding, to him, a glimpse of the magnificent world his god created. He certainly had no intent of saying religion comes from science, nor that religion is confirmed by science...but he did in fact say that religious absolutism, as you proclaim and attempt to label him into, is a fatal error and is utterly destroyed by science. Again, if we wish to get into the game of quoting prominent scientists on their personal views:
***********************************************
“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
************************************************

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.”

― Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions

************************************************

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”

― Carl Sagan

************************************************

“Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”

― Isaac Asimov

************************************************

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

― Steven Weinberg

************************************************

“The more I learn about the universe, the less convinced I am that there’s any sort of benevolent force that has anything to do with it, at all.”

― Neil deGrasse Tyson

************************************************

Need I go on?

3. “Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

Max Born (11 December 1882 – 5 January 1970)
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born***

A Jewish scientists, who did not even believe in Christ....and you use this under your thread titled I am Christian, in which you aim to establish, through non Christian scientists' opinions, that your religion is right?

Look, I know you need to use popular opinion of scientists to attempt to validate your own delusion, since you have no actual evidence to confirm them as true...but to use people who don't even believe what you do, to validate what you believe, because their opinion based on what they knew....come on....it just makes you look like a damn fool. If we are to entertain every opinion of scientists, then let's do just that.

Sir Isaac Newton, Christian scientist, who pioneered modern physics. He was also an alchemist. Did his ground breaking discoveries and formulas that confirm modern physics also prove alchemy true? By your logic, you MUST accept the existence of alchemy, as Newton, who lived AFTER Francis Bacon that you so proudly quote, believed it too.

Einstein, who pioneered quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, also believed the universe was static. The difference between Einstein, and you...is that Einstein was willing to accept his error when the evidence confirmed otherwise. By your logic, since Einstein, one of the most brilliant minds, thought the universe was static, it MUST be.

I can do this all day pal. There is a reason that your pathetically fallacious arguments are not held by a single religious scholar on a formal level...they are nothing but fallacies.

Look I can sit here all day shredding your ignorant, foolish, and childish argument of quoting past figures. That all you have to back up your opinion is other people's opinions is quite telling indeed. For every religious scientist you quote, I can quote hundreds back who say otherwise...and even more so for the few Christian scientists. Quoting scientists from 400 years ago hardly helps to establish modern perspectives of the scientific world. The fact is we know that life can come from simpler forms, and we know that simpler forms can come from mere amino acid replications. We know that amino acids can come from inorganic matter. We know that the universe began as a simple and microscopic singularity, expanding rapidly at first, into our existence, and slowing down as it progresses. Just because we cannot say for certain which process occurred, does not mean it is not possible for many processes. The foolish notion that science brings people to religion is crushed by the overwhelming lack of religious belief within the scientific community, and in the educated community in general. The few who continue to cling to outdated philosophies from outdated and simplistic opinions, from a time in which the world was not understood as it is today, is tantamount to the willful ignorance of those who choose to believe in such fairy tales. There is a reason that no religious community, apart from the one you belong to, embrace your fallacious, and downright idiotic look of things. There is a reason they do not challenge science like you, because they know it is right.

Even the great scientific minds you quote mine, even the most devout religious among them, were pioneers in their scientific field, ONLY because they were willing to suspend their preconceived notions, go against the norm of religious mentality, challenge what the church taught, and embrace their limits in understanding, and accept new evidence. Even Newton's ground breaking work led him to contradict much of what his religion was teaching, as did Galileo. All the great scientists from past to present, were not great because they were atheists, or because they were religious - they were great because they were willing to suspend their beliefs in favour of facts; they were willing to admit when their opinions and beliefs were wrong, and modify, or abandon them in the process, in favour of the truth.

The difference between science and religion, is that only science requires you to self correct your opinions and beliefs, and accept the evidence, no matter what it says. The religious who seek occupation within the scientific community only succeed when they adapt this mentality as well. Science and religion have nothing in common, and it is not logical to use a person's achievements in one, to validate their opinions in the other.

...and as far as your fallacious and insulting quote mining of Einstein goes, Dr. Einstein made this statement in regards to such disrespectful, manipulative and deceitful lies:
************************************************
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein.

What continues to escape you is that Science is neither infallible nor omniscient while God most certainly is.

"Please reply witOh and, btw, did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx) Go figure! :)"

***taken directly from the website you linked (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx):

***A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, MUCH LESS RELIGIOUS than the general public.

****Seems you should have read this webpage for yourself before trying to use what confirms you wrong, as evidence you are right. ;)


This does little to show that the National Academy of Sciences, whom conducted their own poll of their own scientists, demonstrated that 93% do not believe in a god:

***http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html***

But why should a little thing called facts get in the way of your delusion now.

4 More Responses

Your hilariously fallacious quote mining of great minds like Albert Einstein is hardly evidence for god...it is evidence of one person's opinion....which of course, is important to point out is the exact opposite of what you claim. In his autobiography, Albert Einstein himself wrote the following:

"I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic **** of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it." -Albert Einstein.

As far as "The God Who Wasn't There", I could only stomach the first few minutes of this drivel.

To clear up some of the director's misconceptions:

First and foremost, Mark was not the first Gospel written: http://bit.ly/1765Ipl

Matthew was the first written with the Apostle Matthew serving as God's amanuensis: http://bit.ly/Zufnnd http://bit.ly/10IKAOR


Whoever's responsible for that documentary is absolutely clueless and so is anyone who believes his tripe.

"As far as "The God Who Wasn't There", I could only stomach the first few minutes of this drivel."

Funny, since that 'drivel' was the very words of the man you used the words of to show science as believing in god - Albert Einstein. ;)

...and on a grammatical note, stating first and foremost, on your second point is quite erroneous. What is however, foremost in importance is that neither Mark, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor John, wrote the gospels attributed to them. It matters now what order Mark was written in, the lines saying Jesus resurrected was added in from the original texts which ended with the women seeing no body, and leaving out of fear. That you attempt to defend the bold faced lies inserted into the texts years after they were written without those words, by simply saying it was the second written is hilarious. It doesn't make it any less of a fraud.

You really are hard of reading ...

Argumentum assertio. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Prove your claims. Prove that they're all "bold faced lies."

Intelligent, thoughtful research and writing [ the teacher in me is emerging....]

Thank you! Feel free to share. There are a lot of people on here that mistakenly believe Jesus never really existed :)

I really like when the secular society,30 to 150 after Jesus death,plainly refer to Him in a way that's good or bad.They/it authenticates His existence.Thanks maxximiliann.

You're welcome my friend! :)