I'm saying they came to know Him as they lived with Him and associated Him with what the OT scriptures said about Him.
But it was all written LONG after all that by people who never even KNEW him.
Something that is unprovable isn't essentially the same thing as something which is untrue. I think where your're having a hard time with what I'm saying is in not realizing that you can't know anything about an individual life ( name, lineage, where he lived, accomplishments, etc.) without the testimony of another.
Why the testimony of another, which can be often unreliable? Clearly that individual can write his own biography and claim accomplishments.
Which story of Jesus made Him look more Godly? To begin with, their aren't alot of "different stories" about Jesus. There are thousands of manuscripts and although they have discrepencies, the differences are minor compared with "other" ancient writings.
Minor? Who is Joseph's father? (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38) Why is it that only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth? And you'd think after receiving a message from God about Jesus being all-powerful and great (Matthew/Luke), that Jesus would be treated better instead of complaining about how his family acts towards him (Mark 3:20-21 and Mark 6:4-6).
And if you read further on, you can obviously see that all of the Gospels contradict each other, that the authors clearly rewrote history, were edited to match the Church's teachings and even tried to fit a Jesus into Old Testament "prophecies".
Also, The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew; Chapter 18 which was edited out of the final version of the Bible states: "Lo, suddenly there came forth from the cave many dragons; and when the children saw them, they cried out in great terror. Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired."
If that isn't Godly to you, I have one more example:
From the First Gospel of Infancy 18:13-16, which was also edited out because it was either too awesome or that the rest of the edited out gospels portray kid Jesus as an asshole who smites children just for stepping in a pool of water, states:
"Then the Lord Jesus called the serpent, it presently came forth and submitted to him. To the serpent he said, "Go and suck out all the poison which thou hast infused into that boy"; so the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison again. Then the Lord Jesus cursed the serpent so that it immediately burst asunder, and died."
I'm not dismissing any manuscript from any culture. I'm telling you that compared to any other manuscript evidence that has ever been found, the Bible has no equal in mistake free content or volume. It's not even close.
And...what evidence is this?
..Crossing of the Red Sea.
A global deluge.
The creation of the universe by a God that demands circumcision and animal sacrifices.
The resurrection of Christ.
I didn't think you would answer the question. I've heard it said that atheists are free thinkers, but I've seen a pattern since I've been here which indicates it might not be true.
Atheists are humans too. We can be selfish, stupid, jealous, be narrow-minded and so forth. Though I see very few instances of that in this forum on part of the atheists/agnostics/others. Personally for me, there was just this one point in my life when I just had enough and grew exasperated.. and it's significantly more difficult for me to tolerate religious fanatics and Bible-defenders than in the past when I had become an atheist. It wears you down. It really does. So, yes, you may notice I'm very intolerant as compared to others.
So people followed Jesus teachings to their deaths because He was a sreet juggler, but not because He could do miracles. Ok.
Completely missed the point.
And what did the contemporary historians have to say about the person who was fried in the pyroclastic flow? What was his name? Did he accomplish any feats of noteriety? Even your assertion that he was "from Pompeii" is conjecture. He may have just picked a really bad time to go on vacation.
It is impossible to gather that kind of information about that particular person and others from Pompeii. That's akin to demanding the personal histories of every individual who has ever lived on this planet and if no such information can be gathered, then it's unprovable, insignificant or whatever else you deem it so.
And besides, it's really not needed. It's like demanding you know every feat the remains of a neanderthal (such as the one called 'Lucy') did when all you need to know is the more important stuff..like evolutionary details.
And also, I mentioned clothes did I not? Clothes back then were pretty distinguishable from each other due to cultures and even where you lived. Residents of Pompeii during summer would wear their summer-time clothing unique to the Pompeii weather and if the majority are wearing such clothing, then they are most likely the residents of Pompeii. While others, if found in wool and slightly heavier clothing, could be determined as traders from the north or outsiders.
That's the point C. Apparently, to those who met Jesus in person, they saw evidence to believe His claim of being God in the flesh.
Again, the people who wrote about it never knew Jesus nor anyone who even actually met him.
When you consider the time (1st century), the insignificant country He lived in and the duration of Jesus' ministry (3 years), it's not at all surprising that more people didn't meet or write about Him. What is believed to be the first inquiry about Jesus by a foreigner occurs just before His execution. That makes sense.
It's surprising how an infinitely powerful and all-knowing God would limit himself to one particular location, for a particular length of time. This God is a troll. And the "country" wasn't that insignificant considering it was the property of the Roman Empire at the time.
I think we believe the same things should be considered when examining history, so what's your point?
The point is that the remains of the military equipment used aren't exactly testimony..they're evidence.
He's in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, where Agustus, Cyrenius and Archelaus are mentioned, so I guess you believe that both Matthew and Luke decided to write about real people and real places and real events....and then chose to invent Jesus
Sure you can argue that they wrote about real people, real places and real events. But just because they may had a semblance of a historical setting doesn't mean the character they wrote into the story existed or even accomplished those feats at all.
It's like arguing that the creators of Assassins Creed who used the real, historically accurate settings, peoples and individuals of the Crusades/Italian Renaissance and then inserted a dual blade-wielding assassin who can climb all of Middle East's/Rome's buildings and assassinated the freaking Pope's son just apparently did it for the shits and giggles while actually portraying a real character who actually existed at one point in history and did everything he did in the game that portrays him.