God and the blind Tailors

I disagree wholeheartedly here. The scholars that tend to study Jesus are christian apologists. Scholars looking at the question with out the view of dogmatism come to a wholly different conclusion. Even christian apologists have to admit that there is ZERO extra biblical, contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ. Even the writings of Paul do not mention a physical Jesus that actually lived. His writings are of a spiritual Jesus. Maybe you can be the first and present some real evidence for the existence of this guy. I have been looking for years. All I come up with is nothing. I do not think it means what you think it means. (reference to The Princess Bride)Hold outs are people who do not acknowledge the new scholarship. The hold outs are those who toe and proclaim the old tired, discredited, apologist line about the historicity of Jesus.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

First of all if you are going too cut and paste please cite your source.All of these have been debunked in the past on this forum
See hereI asked for contemporary, extra biblical sources. You provided none that fit that criteria. Therefore I won't bother to explain why these are not credible, but will just show how they do not fit the criteris.Suetonius - He wrote this c. 120 CE. It is about a a disturbance in Rome in 49 CE. Wasn't this Jesus guy already nailed up by then? Therefore this is not a contemporary account. Or do you consider someone writing about World War I now, would be writing a comtemporary account?Tacitus - c. 112 CE. Again not contemporary. He was writing about christians not Jesus Christ. He does not mention or quote any sources about the historicity of jesus.Lucian - in your own cut and paste you mention he is a "second-century Greek writer". c. 170 CE. Fail. Not contemporary. Again he offers nothing for proof that Jesus existed.Thallus - Never mentions anything about Jesus. Later writes (200CE and afterward) attempt to make his writing fit the Jesus myth, but there is no evidence here. If you can make a valid argument go for it, but as of yet there is no there, there.Talmud - 300 CE or later. Why didn't you mention the stories of Jesus that don't mach your mythology and legends. One version in the Talmud puts his birth 100 years earlier than your bible. This verse you state is obviously not your Jesus. As a matter of fact the dating is centuries off. I though apologist had dropped this argument from their playbook years ago.
Source
Mara Bar-Serapion - Source

quote:

---

Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syriac writer, is by some believed to be the provider of one of the earliest non-Jewish, non-Christian references to Jesus. His letter, first edited in the nineteenth century by William Cureton, has been dated to sometime after 73 A.D., some 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.[1] It could though have been written as late as in the third century.[2] Writing to encourage his son to pursue wisdom, he uses examples of Socrates, Pythagoras and a "wise King" who was executed by the Jews.

---

Not contemporary and there is no mention of Jesus.Care to try again. Remember, I am looking for contemporary, extra biblical evidence, not apologetics. Contemporary
existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

There is a very good chance it is an interpolation a la Josephus. It has a lot of the same issues the Josephus passages have.There are a number of reviews of the passage that make a strong argument that is an interpolation. Source

quote:

---

Ultraviolet photo of a critical word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy).

​

The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.

---

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Did you even read the link and evidence? Accepted by people indoctrinated in the faith. Evidence please. What does this even mean? But you can't provide evidence against it. Seems to be lots of contemporary evidence for historical people. Lame argument. WTF? Classic christianist response. Can't back the argument so run away.So you freely admit there is no extra biblical, contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The good Rev is participating in another thread, but I guess he wont participate here.You have to wonder about people that won't participate in the thread they started.I am sure he will claim he is being attacked here.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This is the second thread he bailed out of.

Yes. Godwins law strikes again. That means you lose Rev. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. Stalking I think. No we just participate im multiple threads. We have asked for evidence. What did we receive? Insults, ridicule and accusations of picking on the question. You are conflating things here. Your claim of being Mr Humanitarian has nothing to do with your intellectual dishonesty. All we ask for is evidence for your assertions. I really doubt you have any 'truth" to impart on anyone. The why bring these up? Building a case for your christian persecution complex? You have not "shredded diced or sliced' anyone here. All you have done is whined.Waaa, waaa waa.You are a dishonest debater. Maybe one day we can get a christian that can acually defend their views.Edited by Theodoric, : His post really pissed me off had to add

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts