I don’t think any serious scientist questions the existence of Christ because there are waaaay too many NON-biblical references to his physical presence in the area. (roman records etc.)
I don’t think any serious scientist questions the existence of Christ because there are waaaay too many NON-biblical references to his physical presence in the area. (roman records etc.)
***That’s been my point as well. Guys like Soliton who like to claim they uphold science tend to belittle science when it confirms what they don’t like.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ [Open Thread under Religion Moderator’s Guidelines]
Monday, August 04, 2008 1:19:19 PM · by Kevmo · 84 replies · 835+ views
History | August 3, 2008 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
Lots of physicists and other scientists without expertise in anthropology or history are willing to deny the existence of Jesus because they want a contemporary artifact they can examine for themselves—a hotel receipt from the Last Supper, or something like that.
Historians and anthropologists are much more willing to concede Jesus’ historical existence because of the documentary evidence of a cult of Jesus shortly after His putative existence, and because of the shameful nature of His death, which, if invented, could certainly have been more “heroic”—beheading, like St. James, for instance.