Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The erasures were not consistent nor were they entirely thorough, as they looked to disfigure her most prominent and visible images. Still, despite this, there is a plethora of evidence (both locally and not locally in regards to Egypt) that support her existence.
I would contrarily argue that it would be more difficult to eradicate evidence of a ruler, rather than a religious figure. Think about it - if Jesus were deemed the "son of god" (a pretty big deal) you should have evidence and/or writings pertaining to him not just in his immediate geographical area, but also other areas as well.
Given this, it would be nearly impossible to destroy every artifact that would be associated with him. However, if one accepts the notion that Jesus was in fact the "son of god", then they've also accepted the highly implausible notion that this is exactly what happened.
The chances are that Jesus didn't exist. There is a great book called "The Jesus Puzzle" in which the author goes into great depth of all the evidence in history for his existence. The only rational conclusion is that he did not. There is way to little real evidence other than hear say.
Of course if you want to believe, you will, but if your impartial then there is only one ligical outcome.
Yes, absolutely. It doesn't take much common sense, atleast from my perspective, for one to come to the conclusion that not just Christianity, but all religion, is fraudulent.
To me, belief in religion is just illogical given the complete lack of tangible evidence to support it's claims.
i am thinking about it lol and...at the beginning of the reign that of this man..everyone in egypt knew of her existance...along with people of different countries...so it would be impossible to eradicate everything of her existence...but jesus wasn't deemed to be the son of god only he and his followers claimed this..which im sure many people have claimed throughout their history... and if they not only made it illegal to mention jesus(making anyone who didn't believe in christianity to find it not worth it to mention him)...but to actual claim his existence is false..and that anyone that does mention him is lying or..misguided...people that never met him would assume this to be true..and figure that anyone who has ever told of man claiming to be the messiah were wrong...and you must understand how slowly information traveled those days and how easily people believed what they were told.
Why then is there no evidence of Jesus within Roman records, then?
I'm sorry, there's really no significant evidence that suggests that Jesus ever lived. I find it laughable that you can honestly suggest that this man this influential has nothing left in his wake, when arguably less influential individuals from thousands of years prior to Jesus' alleged existence are supported by a plethora of historical evidence which supports their actuality.
Also, Jesus was not just believed to be the son of god by his followers, there were a number of others who saw and respected him, such as his twelve disciples. There's not even evidence to support their existence.
Everything contained within the bible is pure heresay.
hearsay as .unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge....would discredit anyones existence that one hasn't met
Not if there is verifiable evidence to support the 'hearsay', which in the case of Jesus....there isn't!
Quote:
and i just searched google for a secular contemporaneous account of jesus..and semingly found one
Only one?? For a person so famous as he was alleged to have been......you found only one! What was it BTW?
i find it laughable that you think his twelve disciples weren't his followers lol..in fact that is what they did..the followed him every where he went..and also the idea that anyone who believed he was the son of god wasn't his follower..is ridiculous...im not supporting either that he did existed nor he didn't ..im merely giving a set of circumstances that would lead to the eradication of secular contemporaneous accounts of him...there was a time when rome was largely christian...and it was even illegal to believe in anything else...so i would find it hard to believe they have no accounts of him what so ever
also there is a religion in his name...so saying that he left nothing in his wake if he did exist is also very laughable
everything in history is hearsay..though somethings are better supported then others
Even if all historical records of Jesus had been erased, it doesn't excuse the fact that the Jesus figure is nearly identical to hundreds of other messiahs all of which predate him.
Even if all historical records of Jesus had been erased, it doesn't excuse the fact that the Jesus figure is nearly identical to hundreds of other messiahs all of which predate him.
are you saying he is nearly identical to to the hundreds of other people before him who claimed to be the messiah...this is explained by the prophecies of the messiah in judaism..for them to be justifiable they would have to coincide with these prophecies ..and actually the fact that so many people could have claimed to be the messiah would make his records more easily eradicated
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
