Make no mistake; it wasn't bitterness that caused that post. From my understanding of who Jesus was, which does
come from the Bible, saying
that he was focused on Egyptian mythology etc. is directly contrary to the Jesus presented in the Bible.
As for the extreme example of an assumption that I applied to you, StJude, there was thought behind it. I don't recall many, if any, discussions with
you in the past, so I didn't have enough knowledge of your own beliefs to make something directly contrary for the assumption. Instead, I chose
several things that I am 99.9999% sure don't apply to you, and 100% sure the all of them don't apply to you. That was the only reason I went so
extreme; it wasn't because I was upset with you or anything like that.
The whole purpose of that comment was to let you know what the major point of contention will be in so far as your shocking theory goes. Then I tried
to present an example that would show you how ludicrous, in my mind, your assumption of who Christ was is. Obviously, the example I used as my
assumption for you was supposed to convey how out there your assumption of Christ is from everything I know.
As to non-Biblical evidence of Biblical stories, there is far more than you may realize. If you have a lot
of time on your hands, you can find
many explanations in this
thread. They are fairly lengthy, though, being the fifth and sixth most replied
to threads on the entire ATS website. If you've read accounts of people who state, and provide evidence for, why they don't believe the outside
sources are legitimate, I encourage you to look into the author Lee Strobel to see what the opposition, that is, Christians who believe there is a lot
of evidence supporting the validity of the Bible, believes and why. Even if you don't believe it, understanding where Christian's assumptions are
when entering a debate will only help you to make your case stronger. There are several reputable historians who are used for many other,
non-Christian understanding of the history, culture, and events in both Jewish culture, Roman culture, and Greek culture. To say that historians can
take those parts of the ancient non-Biblical historian's accounts, but have to dismiss the mention of a man named Jesus as not being reputable is
However, you're right, no secular, non-Christian source calls Christ the messiah or son of God. If they did, they, ipso facto, become a Christian
source. That's the fundamental tenant of Christianity, after all.