Nope, you are wrong. You can't "PROVE" they were first hand accounts. They were written at LEAST fourty years after Christ was even on earth. I highly doubt that the followers of SUCH AN IMPORTANT person would wait that long to write about him. Do you have Jesus's signiture? Was Jesus recorded by the British as being ONE of their soliders? Nope. Their proof is not the same.
Did Jesus own property? Lead a country of people that could testfy to his authenticity? Or what about leave a will, or own slaves which could testify.
Please, don't kid yourself. There are MANY MANY MANY more RELIABLE accounts of George than for Jesus.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100209022418AA1CrnY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
The problem is, ALL of the documents that mentions George, or at least was written by him are historically accurate, and contemporary to his life. The Bible is a series of writings about A deity.
Even if there was proof of Jesus historically, it does not at all prove any of the things ascribed to him( virgin Birth, Etc.)
Take Mohhamod for instance, We KNOW he existed, but does that prove islam? Nope, not in the slightest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Heck, we even know HOW muhhamod died! Jesus has nothing on this guy!
( to all those who say Wiki isn't reliable, check the sources at the bottom yourself. These are the writings, and the refferances that the Wiki article uses.)
Good Morning,
To reply to your statement did Jesus have a will, he most certainly did, it is called The New Testament: Here is scripture in Hebrews Chapter 9 vs 16-17
16 For where a testament
is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament
is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth Heb 9:16-17 (KJV)
To translate:
16
For where a testament is, etc.—That is, before a testament can have any legal force, the death of the testator must be known and publicly acknowledged as a fact. The reference which our author makes to "the eternal inheritance" at the close of the preceding verse, suggested to his mind the case of a testament, and this thought he now takes up, not for the purpose of proving, but simply of illustrating the necessity of Christ's death.
17
For a testament is of force after men are dead:—This is a well known law of all civilized nations. So long as the testator lives, it is his privilege to change his will as he pleases, and nothing but his death can therefore immutably fix and ratify its various stipulations. Previous to this indeed, his intended heirs may be allowed to enjoy to any extent the benefits of his estate. But not until the will is ratified by his death, can they claim a legal right to the inheritance as their own. And so it was with respect to the eternal inheritance. "After Abraham had patiently endured, he obtained the promise." (
6:15.) That is, immediately after his death he was received into the enjoyment of the promised rest, as one of God's elect, and henceforth he was allowed to partake of the benefits of the inheritance so far as he was capable of enjoying them. (
11:10,
16.) And he also doubtless looked forward to the time when he and his children would be constituted the rightful owners of all things (
Rom. 4:13;
1 Cor. 3:21-23), not excepting the redeemed and renovated earth. See notes on
2:5-9. But it was not until the New Covenant was inaugurated by the death of Christ and ratified by his blood, that any one could claim, as we now claim, an absolute right to the eternal inheritance.
I see no reason for the protracted controversy that critics have kept up with respect to the meaning of the word
diatheke in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses. It is quite evident that the
diathemenos of these verses is the maker of the diatheke, and that his death must of necessity take place before the diatheke can have any legal force. This is not true in the case of a covenant, but only in the case of a will or testament. And hence, beyond all doubt, the word
diatheke in these verses means a will or testament. But on the other hand, it is equally obvious that this word cannot in this sense be literally applied to any of God's arrangements with men, nor does our author so intend to apply it. He refers to the well-known law of a will as an
analogous case, merely for the purpose of illustrating his point, and of so impressing more deeply on the mind of his readers the necessity of Christ's death, before God could consistently bestow on the heirs of the promise a right in fee-simple to the eternal inheritance. The word
diathemenos means both a covenanter and a testator, and the word
diatheke means in like manner both a covenant and a testament. And hence it was perfectly natural and legitimate that our author should, in this instance, pass from the first meaning of diatheke to the second, without however intending to apply the word to any of God's arrangements in a sense which would be altogether inapposite.
—Gospel Advocate Commentaries
