Biblical Jesus wasn't even a real person. Just a rehashing of the Horus, Dionysus, Mithra, Krishna, et. al. stories.
hi teekee. you are back.
This is based on whose account? How did this person derive at such conclusion? Does he tell you that you should believe in him because those who did not believe is ignorance and true happiness is to believe in the existence of Jesus even without proof?Clone: Historical Jesus was a real person.
A revolutionary of his time but His message got lost along the way.
The bible is the best selling zombie tale of all time.
hi teekee. you are back.
Historical Jesus was a real person.
A revolutionary of his time but His message got lost along the way.
Historical Jesus was a real person.
A revolutionary of his time but His message got lost along the way.
This is based on whose account? How did this person derive at such conclusion? Does he tell you that you should believe in him because those who did not believe is ignorance and true happiness is to believe in the existence of Jesus even without proof?
Your own comment already proves that there is no evidence of his existence. All evidence of his existence is base on the assumption that he existed and then creating proof of his existence. Such pre-suppositions plus their evidence created to support are misleading and should not be trusted.
To be fair to the Chirsitan, there are "evidence" from the programs that seemed fabricated. I am not sure about others, but the quote on Buddha's life time is certainly doctored to match that of bible.
For instance, there is no Buddhist script that mentioned Buddha was born of a Virgin. Lama in Tibetean does not mean goat, sheep or any 4 legged organism, its meaning is High Priest. This video is no better than those fabricating stories to try hard justifying the existence of Jesus.
his teaching was edited by paul and later compiled and edited by those men who were in the Council , this were during the days of catholic christainudity.
and later still by whose who formed the modern christianudity ,the Anglican and Protestant , when they broke away from mainstream catholic.
all done supposedly in the name of god ,but in fact to further the grip and control of their own position.
by the way there is nothing revolutionary about his messages , he was just a jew who went about doing what the jews were doing, following their age old
religion practices.
maybe he was the leader of his particular sect. rumours has it that he was of royal descendant and he was trying to lead the jews to be free from the
roman control.