>>17725414wrong
>>428598126 >>428598157 >>428598183 >>428598218 >>428598258Further it can be assumed fact that the apostles truely believed their story. They had no motive to lie about Jesus as the only thing they received from it was a life in refuge and if caught torture to death, having to leave behind family and friends. No reason to make the story up, but endless ones to deny the story, yet even under torture to death they did not revoke the testimony. likewise if they werent earnest in their believe of Christ divinity then they would never have believed Pauls conversion story nor let him into any possible shemes they might be cooking up after he hunted and murdered as many Christians he could find.
You may say they were crazy, deceived, on drugs or whatever, but they did believe their own testimony 100%
So we can establish 2 things as fact:
>Jesus died on the cross>Jesus did a lot of things they couldnt explain beyond acrediting it to miracles of God>He was seen alive afterwardsalso pretty much any recorded event in ancient history is recorded only a century or 2 after the fact,whem it becomes clear what effect those events had.
Christs records with a mere few decades in between is the equivalent of breaking news and if you disregard Christ because of this you need to ignore all of history from that time and before, unless you want to be a hypocrite.
Also rome just had no real reason to bother writing about Jesus before.
Until the temple collapsed He would have been seen as some reformer of a foreign cult in some backwater province rome conquered, nothing worth wasting paper on. Only when the temple got destroyed, Christs prophecy fulfilled and the people started losing their shit it was that Jesus became relevant as the cause for the sudden unrest.
Also Africanus cites the work of Thallus which is from around 52 AD, fairly shortly after Christs death.
