Re: jesus created by the romans

I'm not going to tell you what to believe, obviously you are not a fan of Christianity. Personally, I have also not been a fan of Christianity in general and have been very turned off to Christianity in the past through the actions and words of Christians. But I have come back to Christ because He is indeed the savior and everything that He said He was in the Bible. Regardless of the way people behave or what man has done to corrupt the gospel and use it for his own gain and control, that doesn't stop the original teachings from being true.

That being said, I am a very awake and aware person. I am very open-minded to any historical evidence and research but what was presented in the original post tells us absolutely nothing.

"What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar."

So we should just take this guys word for it? He presents some generic conclusions that he has made and we have to accept it as a fact? Show me the evidence, show me the exact dates and times that line up with the ministry of Jesus. Tell me something that gives me some real tangible evidence.

"Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious"

So basically, we have to already have a bias that Jesus did not exist in order to draw the proper conclusions and interpret things correctly?

I am very willing to look at the information that is presented but what was written in the original post presents absolutely zero evidence for anything. Yet we have not only the Bible, but many, many other texts and documents clearly documenting the life of Jesus. I'm not saying that this makes it an absolute fact and yes the documents we have are not originals, but you can't just discount all of them, they still are historical evidence. Now what is your historical evidence? The conclusions drawn from one author based on one document that many of the parallels the author admits as being "conceptual and poetic".

It seems to me it takes a lot more faith to believe in what the original poster is writing than for those who place faith in Christ, at least they are basing there faith on something that has more historical substance.

I have no doubt that Christianity has been used by evil men to control the population and gain power. I also have no doubt that very few Christians actually understand what the Gospel of Christ was really about; Christ even said that the things he teaches we can't understand because of our pride and ego but this in no way means that the original teachings of Christ were false.