Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

defacto7

(13,699 posts)
2. Very nice to see this information.
Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:27 AM
Apr 2014

There's other excellent arguments based on documents that support this take on the non existence of the Jesus of the bible, monks claiming the advantages of preserving the Christian church even if they have to lie, forge, or doctor older historic documents. See, Eusebius Pamphili, a Roman historian (c. AD 263–339) His Book Evangelical Preparation:
"It may be lawful and fitting to use fictions [falsehood] as a medicine, and for the benefit of those [Christians] who want to be deceived." The list goes on but biblical literalists still hold on to the doctored historical records of Josephus and that's about all they have.

Thanks for this interesting approach.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»Historical evidence that ...»Reply #2