Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 The bogeyman is mentioned in many books too. Maybe so- but not by identifiable and named people who knew him personally and gave verbatim testimony of his speeches/conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Yes, you're wrong Then have the decency to at least offer an explanation as to why they are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Easy: because there's eyewitness testimony available. Unless you don't agree with the concept of eyewitness testimony? If so, don't tell the Court at your trial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 Easy: because there's eyewitness testimony available. Unless you don't agree with the concept of eyewitness testimony? If so, don't tell the Court at your trial! Would these be the same people that witnessed the resurrection and miracles he performed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 No, because he did no such things- Roman testimony shows that- and the 'reporters' of such activities lived some centuries later. You yourself might well not be able to report personally on events of 200-300yrs. ago (even if you're long-sighted)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 No, because he did no such things- Roman testimony shows that- and the 'reporters' of such activities lived some centuries later. You yourself might well not be able to report personally on events of 200-300yrs. ago (even if you're long-sighted)! If that wasn't true and people claim it was or have faith based on this then why should I believe claims he existed? Where's his grave? Surely if the resurrection wasn't real he has a grave or some final resting place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Absence of a grave proves nothing. Yes, he must have been buried- as a Jew, he is prohibited from cremation (plus no-one was cremated in those days, anyway!)- but nobody knows where. Consider England: there were millions of people alive at various times before 1066, you'll agree, but could you pinpoint their graves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 Absence of a grave proves nothing. Yes, he must have been buried- as a Jew, he is prohibited from cremation (plus no-one was cremated in those days, anyway!)- but nobody knows where. Consider England: there were millions of people alive at various times before 1066, you'll agree, but could you pinpoint their graves? We're talking about Jesus here. You claim people knew him whilst he was alive. If he was such a great bloke I'm sure someone looked after him during his death. This is the son of God we're talking about isn't it and not Jesus MacTavish of the clan Mactavish, son of Doug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 He did not claim to be any such thing, of course; again, that was a projection by the later writers of the Gospels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 He did not claim to be any such thing, of course; again, that was a projection by the later writers of the Gospels. So where did the people who knew of him whilst he was alive and clearly thought something of him as they mentioned it bury him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.