They are the earliest non Christian sources writing about the early Christians. Tacitus for instance.
Here is more from a historians answer comparing Alexander the Great and Jesus
The earliest extant biography of Alexander the Great was written 300 years after his death. The earliest extant biography of Jesus was written 40 years after his death, followed by three more independent biographies within 50–60 years of his death.
If you read anything on the life of Alexander, you will find that the historians who specialize in the subject have no problem mining the extant biographies for intimate details about his life, such as his favorite food or his feelings about his mother.
And
The birthplace of Julius Caesar, for example, appears in a single primary source written 175 years after his death, and that is accepted without controversy.
Saying "apparently this" and posting an entire website isn't an argument.
But let me give you another argument. 1st century Roman scholars were able to understand that Christians weren't going to their deaths over some person they recently just made up. Jews who hated Christ didn't argue that either. Yet fallen man 2000 years later insists this is the case because they wish it so.
And as mentioned earlier, modern fallen man have to create fictitious re-writings of ancient mythology to claim Jesus was a copy of them (see Zeitgeist and their sources). Why do they need to lie? Because the truth isn't on their side.
Correct, its not an argument. Its up to you to use your own inquistion to learn if you want.
Your previous argument was based on a source, citing trusted information. The point of the link i sent was that there is another who says your source of info is not true.
I couldnt convince you, i hardly have time talent or time it would take, if even possible. Its far better for you to change your own mind from your own learning and own experience.
This second argument is claiming that there is evidence for christ because modern man supposedly grasps as straws by faking that other mythology stories are the basis for christ story.
I dont bother with any moot arguments of why. I just look for the evidence of existance. A proof that jesus was real.
They are the earliest non Christian sources writing about the early Christians. Tacitus for instance.
Here is more from a historians answer comparing Alexander the Great and Jesus
And
Appearently, this: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17187
But i dont see why i should trust historical analysis. I know man is corruptable, like science and historical records
Saying "apparently this" and posting an entire website isn't an argument.
But let me give you another argument. 1st century Roman scholars were able to understand that Christians weren't going to their deaths over some person they recently just made up. Jews who hated Christ didn't argue that either. Yet fallen man 2000 years later insists this is the case because they wish it so.
And as mentioned earlier, modern fallen man have to create fictitious re-writings of ancient mythology to claim Jesus was a copy of them (see Zeitgeist and their sources). Why do they need to lie? Because the truth isn't on their side.
Correct, its not an argument. Its up to you to use your own inquistion to learn if you want.
Your previous argument was based on a source, citing trusted information. The point of the link i sent was that there is another who says your source of info is not true.
I couldnt convince you, i hardly have time talent or time it would take, if even possible. Its far better for you to change your own mind from your own learning and own experience.
This second argument is claiming that there is evidence for christ because modern man supposedly grasps as straws by faking that other mythology stories are the basis for christ story.
I dont bother with any moot arguments of why. I just look for the evidence of existance. A proof that jesus was real.
I see nothing