So that's it for the election.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No they weren't, the existence of a historical Jesus outside scripture (which are obviously biased) can be inferred but it's a huge exaggeration to say many of the basic facts and accounts are colloborated. They're not.

Regards,
Mg

Yes, they are. But we're probably talking about different facts and accounts, because when it comes to religious figures, some of you see red.

I am talking about Jesus having existed, having been generally revered by Christians, and having been crucified. Nothing religious, nothing supernatural. Just the basic outlines of him as a historical figure. Those accounts were corroborated by Tacitus (a Roman, non-Christian historian), and to a lesser extent, Josephus. You also can't entirely discount scripture. You can set aside the supernatural details, but you should at least account for the fact that the writings identify Jesus as having existed. They are not sufficient on their own to prove that he did because they are obviously biased, but taken together with an unbiased and highly reliable third source, you have a historical figure as fleshed out as nearly any.