^Heresay.  Won't hold up in court

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/gospel-of-mark.htm

The consensus among scholars is that the book of Mark was written between 50 and 60 A.D.
That's exactly what I was saying: nobody wrote about Jesus while he was alive.

If Jesus was this earth-shatteringly miraculous person, how on earth could that be the case?  Why are there not hundreds or thousands of astounded onlookers passing on the miracles they witnessed? (that site also says
First, it clearly establishes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah that was prophesied throughout the Old Testament. Second, it proves that Jesus was the Son of God, whom He claimed to be by living a sinless and perfect life.
...it "proves" nothing of the sort - the level of proof contained is exactly what is in L Ron Hubbard's Scientology books.  It certainly ain't proof that would stand up in any court of law.



Was isn't is.  She had her place in time, but her time passed.

If you are talking most famous ever, not ones tied to insular political, social, or ethnocentric constraints, I would think major figures in majority religions would be on the top of the scale. 

But when it comes to name recognition today, you'll find that she's still remembered all round the world.  As is our current queen, I suppose.

A lot depends on what you call "famous" - whether people have heard of the name; can actually say something this person has done, what they look(ed) like.

Mohammed is probably up there - but is just knowing the name enough to justify being called "famous"?

Osama Bin Laden.

Ant

Osama Bin Laden.

Ant
Infamous more than famous?

^Heresay.   Won't hold up in court

Not if they are direct stories from Simon Peter who was there.

St. Paul then?

Not if they are direct stories from Simon Peter who was there.

And what evidence is there to prove that connection?  I've seen it asserted, but where is it actually recorded by anyone who had first-hand knowledge of the people concerned (i.e. not the same sort of "biblical scholar" who decided to make stuff up in order to show the "Truth" of the Bible)?

And what evidence is there to prove that connection?  I've seen it asserted, but where is it actually recorded by anyone who had first-hand knowledge of the people concerned (i.e. not the same sort of "biblical scholar" who decided to make stuff up in order to show the "Truth" of the Bible)?




I believe the NIV version of Bible footnotes that noone knew who wrote most of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke, who was writing it for someone of a higher order(I believe it was a king).  The book of Revelations was rejected by Martin Luther I believe.

I believe the NIV version of Bible footnotes that noone knew who wrote most of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke, who was writing it for someone of a higher order(I believe it was a king). 


There is a false assumption by many that Jesus and his prophets were poor, or at best, struggling.  But that could not be the case since it is only recently history, say the past 200 years or so, that those of the poorer classes have been allowed to learn to read and write.  If the story of Jesus in the temple is true, then it would mean that Jesus was from a very powerful family, indeed.  For him to do what he did in that story, well, a peasant would not have been allowed to live.

And what evidence is there to prove that connection?  I've seen it asserted, but where is it actually recorded by anyone who had first-hand knowledge of the people concerned (i.e. not the same sort of "biblical scholar" who decided to make stuff up in order to show the "Truth" of the Bible)?



Read the following
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-02/919714996.Sh.r.html

If you're doubting the existance of Jesus and his teachings,I have read where the actual history of Buddha is clouded and even his scholars can not agree whenhe lived . Does this mean he did not exist..No

Can Adam be more famous?

Not for want of trying

http://donnaobrien.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/02/adamant.jpg

Read the following
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-02/919714996.Sh.r.html

If you're doubting the existance of Jesus and his teachings,I have read where the actual history of Buddha is clouded and even his scholars can not agree whenhe lived . Does this mean he did not exist..No

Please answer the question, rather than changing the subject to a point I wasn't trying to make.  Though even that link you gave shows the problem: Josephus and Tacitus were not writing while Jesus was alive - by the time they were writing, there were followers of Christ who believed yet had never seen their messiah firsthand.. and both Josephus and Tacitus wrote about these people.  That in no way whatsoever provides proof that Jesus was the person they believed him to be, all it does is provide evidence that there were others around at the time who did believe.  Some early Christians obviously believed that Josephus wasn't convincing enough - they added passages to make it look like he believed the myth of Christ the miracle-worker.

To be honest, I don't really care whether there actually was a man called Jesus - the mythology that has built up to surround his birth, life and death could be just as easily attributed to a virtual man as a real one.  The difference between Jesus and people like Buddha or Mohammed is that they wrote (copiously!), and others wrote about them - while they were alive.  All that has been presented about Jesus is hearsay.

Please answer the question, rather than changing the subject to a point I wasn't trying to make.  Though even that link you gave shows the problem: Josephus and Tacitus were not writing while Jesus was alive - by the time they were writing, there were followers of Christ who believed yet had never seen their messiah firsthand.. and both Josephus and Tacitus wrote about these people.  That in no way whatsoever provides proof that Jesus was the person they believed him to be, all it does is provide evidence that there were others around at the time who did believe.  Some early Christians obviously believed that Josephus wasn't convincing enough - they added passages to make it look like he believed the myth of Christ the miracle-worker.

To be honest, I don't really care whether there actually was a man called Jesus - the mythology that has built up to surround his birth, life and death could be just as easily attributed to a virtual man as a real one.  The difference between Jesus and people like Buddha or Mohammed is that they wrote (copiously!), and others wrote about them - while they were alive.  All that has been presented about Jesus is hearsay.

If your a Scientologist and don't believe in Jesus that is your prerogative,but how much more proof do you need
Obviously the person of Jesus is mentioned quite thoroughly in the New Testament and other early Christian writings but Jesus is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus. The fact that Josephus, a practicing Jew and a man who was not actively involved Christian circles and not part of the early church mentions the existence of Jesus of Nazareth in his writings definitely gives credence to the argument for the existence of Jesus Christ. In turn, another of the most credible arguments for the existence of Jesus Christ are the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian who also mentioned the existence of the crucifixion of Jesus in his writings. In turn, the writings of Tacitus are viewed by historians as crucial to not only understanding early Middle Eastern history but also what we know of early Germanic tribes in Europe
Are you saying all those people are wrong?
Simon Peter/Peter is the rock(foundation on which Jesus built his Christianity following. It was his teachings of Jesus that converted people.He is mentioned in Luke,Mark and Matthew.Simon Peters bones were discovered on Mt Olive in Jerusalam,which proved he did exist.The only false thing is that many believed he traveled to Rome and died. Finding his bones proves of his existance and it was his word and other apostle that Luke wrote about.
The two documents most widely attributed to Luke, The Gospel According to Luke and The Acts of the Apostles, are held in high regard by biblical historians and archaeologists for their historical accuracy and trustworthiness.

Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, concurs: "Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the Greeks."

Dr. Norman L. Geisler observed, "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without a error."

Christian apologist Josh MacDowell notes that in specific instances where Luke's texts have been found to disagree with common scholarly knowledge, where archaeology has been able to resolve the difference, the disagreement has consistently been resolved in favor of Luke. Additionally, Luke has brought to light previously unknown details which have later been verified by historians or archaeologists.

In conclusion as I mentioned before,you will believe what you want.Whose to say that the founder of Scientology L Ron Hubbard isn't a madman,there is a fine line between being brillant and being mad.are we to believe because some celebrities follow his teachings,that he really  understands the meaning of truth.Followers of Jim Jones thought the same thing.