There is no proof about his "miracles", and if he died in the crucifixion. It could be some random dude named Jesus that other dudes took to make a magical history.
By that logic, I can disregard gravity's effect on time because Galileo came up with some nonsense about what happens to planets observed through the sun's gravitational field.
@SH3LLSH0CK What i mean is that faith does allow men to bond with others. Our minds can work really well we we are united under a common goal. That goal can be faith. I'm not saying it can't be something else
@felldie1496 Never said a word about his miracles, but there was a dude named Jesus who died under crucifixion and kicked off a religious firestorm in the eastern Roman Empire that scared the fuck out of the local politicians.
We can prove physics because if we make experiments about an specific theory, that theory predicts what the experiment has done. This has nothing to do with history.
We can only do so much to prove the existence of Jesus and to my understand most people who have looked into this admit that there was a dude named Jesus and that a lot of the bible can be correlated to reality. Were not talking the miracles here
@Psychedelic Corpse Fucker Considering what the Romans called "crucifixion" covered everything from staking people to tying them to tree branches to die, it's really tough to say.
Don't see how all this discussion about the historically accuracy of those represented in religious texts has much to do with the validity of the religion. I would be more concerned about the parts of religion that are blatantly misleading and destructive, such as belief in an afterlife.
@SH3LLSH0CK I actually agree that historical accuracy does not validate the religion. I didn't realize that was the argument we were making, that if it's historically accurate it must validate the religious concepts.
