If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
I think wolfy is reading my post on page 9 with his mouth open and an odd feeling in his chest...you know...that feeling you get when you realize your whole world view was based on a lie...and now he is ....

[Image: 17qws1.jpg]

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
04-11-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 02:54 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I think wolfy is reading my post on page 9 with his mouth open and an odd feeling in his chest...you know...that feeling you get when you realize your whole world view was based on a lie...and now he is ....

[Image: 17qws1.jpg]

As happy as I'd be to agree with you I think he's a bona fide idiot - he's presented his credentials at any rate, and I believe him - so if he can even spell his way through your post he's not gonna get anything out of it other than a headache. He'll just come back with some whiny shit about how you're a moron Rolleyes

I truly believe he's fucken dense. Hey Wolfie. You're fucken dense. I don't know why though, but stupid people always seem to think they're clever - why??? If I was fucken dumb I'd recognize that other people were smarter than me and shut the fuck up. Fortunately I'm not. But Wolfie *is*, and he doesn't do the polite thing... Why do stupid people i.e. Wolfie, why can't they realise their own fucken stupidity? I've tried telling hundreds of them and all they do is get angry. It's an *advantage* to know you're fucken thick, Wolfie, it means you can work on *coping* strategies.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
04-11-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 12:13 PM)WhatWasIThinking Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 11:59 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Interesting that your avatar is about wolves. Drinking Beverage

Are you freakn serious?
Dont bother with my question. Ive got enough answers for today, plenty today has been eye opening
Anything else I will research and come to things on my own


Well allrighty, I'll answer your question.

It really doesn't matter if Alexander the Great lived or not or whether we can prove it or not. You see, we don't have an Alexanderine doctrine that we have to believe in or perhaps live by. We don't have Alexanderine pastors berating gay people or transgender people and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. There aren't Alexanderieens who are pushing to have Alexander worshiped in public school at the expense of science. There aren't Alexanderine rules being posted on courthouse walls.

Since Alexander never claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead or was believed to be the son of god it doesn't matter too much if he didn't existed.

Oh, there might be some countries with boundaries that are misaligned if he didn't exist and some interesting stories of his youth and military prowess that will have to bite the dust, but other than that, it really isn't a big deal if he didn't exist.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like dancefortwo's post
04-11-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 03:16 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Well allrighty, I'll answer your question.

It really doesn't matter if Alexander the Great lived or not or whether we can prove it or not. You see, we don't have an Alexanderine doctrine that we have to believe in or perhaps live by. We don't have Alexanderine pastors berating gay people or transgender people and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. There aren't Alexanderieens who are pushing to have Alexander worshiped in public school at the expense of science. There aren't Alexanderine rules being posted on courthouse walls.

Since Alexander never claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead or was believed to be the son of god it doesn't matter too much if he didn't existed.

Oh, there might be some countries with boundaries that are misaligned if he didn't exist and some interesting stories of his youth and military prowess that will have to bite the dust, but other than that, it really isn't a big deal if he didn't exist.

I will disagree. He was one man who irrevocably changed the course of history of the whole world through his own genius. But there is clear evidence. Archaeology, ancient texts, everything lines up and confirms it. No one takes the ancient texts at face value, it's always a question of how much do you believe or not, was the author trying to write propaganda, those sorts of questions.

OP asks why not the same for Jesus. I'd say *Jesus* is the one for whom it doesn't really matter if he did or didn't exist. He's already a semi or wholly mythical figure. The religion based around his existence is of interest because they're batshit insane, but the religion could have easily started whether or not the actual man existed.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
04-11-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 02:29 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 02:25 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  No Im very proud of the fact that good sources correct your bullshit... Im very pleased you guys are shown to be scholastic hypocrites. I'm very pleased to show I know MUCH more about this subject than ALL of you combined, and that Im able to even produce the manuscripts from the 10th century talking about Alexander when YOU couldn't.

Hell you guys didn't even know the earliest manuscript for Alexander was from the 10th century. My sources prove the point though, and you cant debunk them with more than "no that's not true"...its all youv got to pull from your ass now.

Im the only one in this thread with credible sources and 90 percent of the world disagrees with you, My scholars outnumber yours, my documents outnumber yours by the thousands... and mine are 1400 years closer to the source.

Yup, very happy here

Smile

Sigh, let me see if our special one can comprehend the basics....

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

Not only are you wrong, but youre using something form 1874...

http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-test...st-century
Quote:I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

This is in contrast to the fact that ours dates to the first century, we have MANY from the 2nd century, and your earliest for Alexander is STILL 1500 years removed from his lifetime... don't be a hypocrite.

Quote:The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) You are among the 10 percent of the world that make this charge... Most of the rest of the world accept that Jesus is a true historical figure BECAUSE OF the abounding existing manuscript evidence and the references by historians.

2) Of course they were written after His resurrection moron... That's what its all about... the resurrection.


Quote:2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

LMAO... so? He mentions Christ and wrote to the CHIRSITAN CHURCH moron. That's the point... what was his message to the church? Answer this

Quote:3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

Sure again moron... MOST scholars agreed it should be there evidently eh? Isnt that why its there?

Quote:4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

So you allege now that Jude didn't know how to write? LMAO... ok... have you ever heard of a scribe? And what makes you think the autographs were written in greek and not Aramaic?

Quote:Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Most scholars agree Jesus was born around 6 AD. This would put Josephus's birth about the time of the resurrection and the very beginning of a very excited church. Since he was also a leader/general in the Jewish rebellion against Rome, 66-70 AD, he KNEW of the church intimately because he was THERE when it began and grew. He ALSO OBVIOUSLY had access to eyewitnesses.

Quote:Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

You SAY they are interpolations, but you have not one shred of credible evidence to PROVE this. YOU assert it is because you have an agenda. Again MOST of the entire world disagrees with you as do MOST scholars.

Also I SHOULD point out that MOST of the people on YOUR side doesn't even claim the entire passage is a forgery, but ONLY the part where it calls Jesus Messiah.

http://tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.php

But even THEY are outnumbered by the scholars who don't question it. I have to ask though WHY you question this ONE part and accept the rest of Josephus as valid?

Quote:2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

WHAT? out of the range of eyewitnesses? This was around 23 years after the crucifixion? How is it youre lying here saying it is out of reach of eyewitness material? Most people believe Jesus to be born between 4-6 AD

Again... complete bullshit.

Quote:3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Again complete bullshit since this was a mere 25 or so years later

Quote:4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Again complete bullshit... for the same reasons as the above 2...

Quote:5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

So? This is removed from Christ by 2 and a half centuries, based on written and oral testimony handed down... at 2 an a half centuries removed from Christ it is STILL 1250 years closer than your earliest manuscript for Alexander... moron..

Quote:6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context.

The EXACT same thing can be said for the works referring to Alexander... only they are removed form alexander by 1500 years Smile

[quote]Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

So? This is STILL TONS more than you have for Alexander... just these references alone. Also MANY of the sources provided thus far were even HOSTILE to Christianity, which grants them even more validation.

Quote:Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

This means you shouldn't believe in Alexander... who was supposedly born of a god. But you do believe he existed I take it? Also HOW do you say in one breath you DONT KNOW who wrote the gospels, and in the same breath say it was a community effort?

Total hypocrisy and double standard. especially in light of the fact you believe Alexander the great existed Smile

Quote:Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

Note many MODERN scholars... this wasn't a problem until the 18th century Wink
And WHY do some of these scholars reject Luke as the author? Mainly because they say Paul didn't refer to Luke as a physician in the Pauline epistles Smile

How flimsy Tongue

In conclusion, it looks like youre just fulla shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 03:16 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 12:13 PM)WhatWasIThinking Wrote:  Are you freakn serious?
Dont bother with my question. Ive got enough answers for today, plenty today has been eye opening
Anything else I will research and come to things on my own


Well allrighty, I'll answer your question.

It really doesn't matter if Alexander the Great lived or not or whether we can prove it or not. You see, we don't have an Alexanderine doctrine that we have to believe in or perhaps live by. We don't have Alexanderine pastors berating gay people or transgender people and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. There aren't Alexanderieens who are pushing to have Alexander worshiped in public school at the expense of science. There aren't Alexanderine rules being posted on courthouse walls.

Since Alexander never claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead or was believed to be the son of god it doesn't matter too much if he didn't existed.

Oh, there might be some countries with boundaries that are misaligned if he didn't exist and some interesting stories of his youth and military prowess that will have to bite the dust, but other than that, it really isn't a big deal if he didn't exist.

An interesting trivial side note: Alexander was homosexual... which isn't a big deal, either.

I have to wonder if there was more scholarly evidence for the historically proposed character - Jesus - ... would it be a big deal if he was found to be a homosexual? How about if he was found to be atheist? What if he was in fact found to be a woman disguised as a man?

I think many of the people who want Jesus to have actually existed, also want him to be the way they want him to be. Many of those same people might even overlook the parts of the bible which portray him coarsely.

Some people see only what they want to see and only how they want to see it... and often they only want others to see that as well. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
04-11-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 03:16 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 12:13 PM)WhatWasIThinking Wrote:  Are you freakn serious?
Dont bother with my question. Ive got enough answers for today, plenty today has been eye opening
Anything else I will research and come to things on my own


Well allrighty, I'll answer your question.

It really doesn't matter if Alexander the Great lived or not or whether we can prove it or not. You see, we don't have an Alexanderine doctrine that we have to believe in or perhaps live by. We don't have Alexanderine pastors berating gay people or transgender people and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. There aren't Alexanderieens who are pushing to have Alexander worshiped in public school at the expense of science. There aren't Alexanderine rules being posted on courthouse walls.

Since Alexander never claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead or was believed to be the son of god it doesn't matter too much if he didn't existed.

Oh, there might be some countries with boundaries that are misaligned if he didn't exist and some interesting stories of his youth and military prowess that will have to bite the dust, but other than that, it really isn't a big deal if he didn't exist.

But you still believe Alexander existed though his evidence is FLIMSEY compared to the evidence for Jesus Smile

Youre an intellectually dishonest moron... you could at least admit the truth and admit Jesus was a historical figure even if you DONT believe He is God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 03:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 03:16 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Well allrighty, I'll answer your question.

It really doesn't matter if Alexander the Great lived or not or whether we can prove it or not. You see, we don't have an Alexanderine doctrine that we have to believe in or perhaps live by. We don't have Alexanderine pastors berating gay people or transgender people and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. There aren't Alexanderieens who are pushing to have Alexander worshiped in public school at the expense of science. There aren't Alexanderine rules being posted on courthouse walls.

Since Alexander never claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead or was believed to be the son of god it doesn't matter too much if he didn't existed.

Oh, there might be some countries with boundaries that are misaligned if he didn't exist and some interesting stories of his youth and military prowess that will have to bite the dust, but other than that, it really isn't a big deal if he didn't exist.

I will disagree. He was one man who irrevocably changed the course of history of the whole world through his own genius. But there is clear evidence. Archaeology, ancient texts, everything lines up and confirms it. No one takes the ancient texts at face value, it's always a question of how much do you believe or not, was the author trying to write propaganda, those sorts of questions.

OP asks why not the same for Jesus. I'd say *Jesus* is the one for whom it doesn't really matter if he did or didn't exist. He's already a semi or wholly mythical figure. The religion based around his existence is of interest because they're batshit insane, but the religion could have easily started whether or not the actual man existed.


Says the idiot who has no sources that are credible, ...the same idiot that rejects all credible evidence Tongue

But you believe Alexander lived despite the fact the evidence for Jesus buries Alexanders documentation like an avalanche... youre just intellectually dishonest and youre all nothing but paranoid goons Smile

Looks like my job here is done... the OP sees you all for what you are now.

Now THIS is for the OP

YOU are very loved and desired. YOU don't have to run from the truth or be afraid any more ever. YOU will never be alone again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 03:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 03:16 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Well allrighty, I'll answer your question.

It really doesn't matter if Alexander the Great lived or not or whether we can prove it or not. You see, we don't have an Alexanderine doctrine that we have to believe in or perhaps live by. We don't have Alexanderine pastors berating gay people or transgender people and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. There aren't Alexanderieens who are pushing to have Alexander worshiped in public school at the expense of science. There aren't Alexanderine rules being posted on courthouse walls.

Since Alexander never claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead or was believed to be the son of god it doesn't matter too much if he didn't existed.

Oh, there might be some countries with boundaries that are misaligned if he didn't exist and some interesting stories of his youth and military prowess that will have to bite the dust, but other than that, it really isn't a big deal if he didn't exist.

I will disagree. He was one man who irrevocably changed the course of history of the whole world through his own genius. But there is clear evidence. Archaeology, ancient texts, everything lines up and confirms it. No one takes the ancient texts at face value, it's always a question of how much do you believe or not, was the author trying to write propaganda, those sorts of questions.

OP asks why not the same for Jesus. I'd say *Jesus* is the one for whom it doesn't really matter if he did or didn't exist. He's already a semi or wholly mythical figure. The religion based around his existence is of interest because they're batshit insane, but the religion could have easily started whether or not the actual man existed.

Indeed. The conquest of the Greek cities was led by somebody. The military invasion of the Persian empire was led by somebody. The diadochoi rose to positions of power and influence under somebody. The cross-cultural contact was initiated by somebody. The name and face they stamped on coins, wrote in histories, dedicated on temples, eulogised in epigrams and carved in statue came from somewhere. All these things happened, or else the entirety of history is a fabrication.

Although one can turn batshit insane up to eleven by way of alternate historiography, it rather fails to be compelling.

Perhaps a relevant question is, if so-and-so hadn't existed, what would change? Without someone doing the deeds which demonstrably occurred during the lifetime of the purported Alexander, history would be unrecognisable.

Without the actual, physical existence of Jesus? Nothing. Nothing would be any different; the early church leaders would still have founded their cult and theology on revelation from a mystical being.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
04-11-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(04-11-2014 03:41 PM)kim Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 03:16 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Well allrighty, I'll answer your question.

It really doesn't matter if Alexander the Great lived or not or whether we can prove it or not. You see, we don't have an Alexanderine doctrine that we have to believe in or perhaps live by. We don't have Alexanderine pastors berating gay people or transgender people and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. There aren't Alexanderieens who are pushing to have Alexander worshiped in public school at the expense of science. There aren't Alexanderine rules being posted on courthouse walls.

Since Alexander never claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead or was believed to be the son of god it doesn't matter too much if he didn't existed.

Oh, there might be some countries with boundaries that are misaligned if he didn't exist and some interesting stories of his youth and military prowess that will have to bite the dust, but other than that, it really isn't a big deal if he didn't exist.

An interesting trivial side note: Alexander was homosexual... which isn't a big deal, either.

I have to wonder if there was more scholarly evidence for the historically proposed character - Jesus - ... would it be a big deal if he was found to be a homosexual? How about if he was found to be atheist? What if he was in fact found to be a woman disguised as a man?

I think many of the people who want Jesus to have actually existed, also want him to be the way they want him to be. Many of those same people might even overlook the parts of the bible which portray him coarsely.

Some people see only what they want to see and only how they want to see it... and often they only want others to see that as well. Shy

...and we don't have to WANT him to exist... If scholars agree Alexander lived, then with the landslide of documentation for Christ,, SNOWING UNDER poor alexander, proves beyond any shadow of any doubt He is the head of the Christian church ONLY BECAUSE He lived and died and rose to life again Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: