Hey i know how Jesus was able to walk on water

[Undone]

Tac: birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity.

I'll take this is an admission that Tacitus confirms the Biblical account that Pilate executed Jesus. So you'll need to retract your claim that "The only proof any of those people even existed is in the NT."

 

You can continue to deny the veracity of the document or account based on the time at which it was recorded...but you can no longer say that there are no outside sources.

 

And again - it is not uncommon for written history to be recorded post facto. If that's your stumbling block, so be it. But remember - good evidence has been submitted that debunks the modern-day skeptics' timeline of the gospels. There's good evidence that they were written earlier than is sometimes regarded. You can take that for what it's worth, I'm simply trying to present all evidence.

[knapplc]

What you should be taking from that is the fact that there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus. And with lack of trained scribes of the period, that's not uncommon, nor is it terrible troublesome if one is simply trying to establish if Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Based on how history was documented "back then" Jesus was, and that's not the question.

 

The question is whether or not Jesus was God, and that's very much in question. And the very troublesome thing is that you must put your faith not in "God," but in humans. That's the weird thing about Christian faith - it hinges so much on people, yet Christians put their faith entirely in God. It's not God who wrote these books, it's not God who recounted the stories, it's people. And people tend to exaggerate, they aggrandize, they "sell" to get their story across.

[Hedley Lamarr]

We're told that in a book we know wasn't written in the instant, but years (if not over a century) later.

That's such an interesting stumbling block; "not written in the instant." I might hitherto ascribe to a philosophy in which I deny the existence of George Washington, Napoleon, and Charlemagne unless I can be presented a silver platter on which empirical evidence supports the existence of a scribe who captured their goings-on, in their locus in quo.

 

It seems to me a strange objection.

 

George Washington: we have so many documents that belonged to him it is silly to compare him to the evidence surrounding Jesus

 

Napoleon: we again have multiple writings written by Napoleon.

 

Charlemagne: exact days etc are known of certain battles under his reign.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Tac: birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity.

I'll take this is an admission that Tacitus confirms the Biblical account that Pilate executed Jesus. So you'll need to retract your claim that "The only proof any of those people even existed is in the NT."

 

You can continue to deny the veracity of the document or account based on the time at which it was recorded...but you can no longer say that there are no outside sources.

 

And again - it is not uncommon for written history to be recorded post facto. If that's your stumbling block, so be it. But remember - good evidence has been submitted that debunks the modern-day skeptics' timeline of the gospels. There's good evidence that they were written earlier than is sometimes regarded. You can take that for what it's worth, I'm simply trying to present all evidence.

 

I take it as evidence that he spoke to Christians and said that that is what they believe. Nothing more nothing less

[BigRedBuster]

Heck, there are people that claim the Holocaust never happened even with all the documentation around it.

 

There are people who claim we never walked on the moon even though there is documentation around it.

[Undone]

What you should be taking from that is the fact that there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus.

This particular point is now starting to go in circles just a bit.

 

Landlord and I have shown good evidence that the first-hand accounts were around to not only give an account of what they saw, but to also orally edit the original autographs if discrepancies arose in the central theme of the accounts, based on good timelines. One can choose to reject this evidence, one can choose to say that the evidence doesn't command a positive verdict, but one can't ignore the fact that first-hand accounts were plausibly written down (albeit by someone else) in their own lifetime.

[knapplc]

What you should be taking from that is the fact that there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus.

This particular point is now starting to go in circles just a bit.

 

Landlord and I have shown good evidence that the first-hand accounts were around to not only give an account of what they saw, but to also orally edit the original autographs if discrepancies arose in the central theme of the accounts, based on good timelines. One can choose to reject this evidence, one can choose to say that the evidence doesn't command a positive verdict, but one can't ignore the fact that first-hand accounts were plausibly written down (albeit by someone else) in their own lifetime.

 

No, you have not shown that. You have shown that there are stories written about Jesus which were not written during Jesus' life, and possibly several decades to a century or more after his death. The scholarship is not in agreement about when the Gospels were written, or even by whom. Think about that - you're telling me you have substantive information about what was related in the Gospels, but you don't even know who wrote them.

 

Again, that's not faith in God, that's faith in man. And that's the key point I'm trying to make here - Christian faith rests far less on God than on Man. And Christianity tells us that Man is sinful, flawed, etc.

 

This is not a house built on a solid rock. It is built on sand.

[Undone]

Rudolf Pesch, an expert on Mark, explains in his Das Markusevangelim that the Passion source must go back to at least 37 A.D.

 

That's an example of research that led to a positive claim that eyewitness testimony was written extremely early.

[knapplc]

Pesch and other Mark scholars also are very much aware that Mark has multiple versions, based on various codices, and the Mark in my Bible at home is not the Mark, but an agreed-upon version of Mark. The original is, of course, lost to time. Pesch makes presumptions that are supportable, but not provable. There are versions of Mark considered canon which end at 16:8, others which end at 16:20. Which is the real Mark? Pesch doesn't answer that, thus making any case for dating Mark tenuous at best.

 

 

 

EDIT - since I'm unfamiliar with Rudolph Pesch, I had to do some digging to find his arguments in favor of Mark being dated to seven years of Jesus' death. This, from what I've found, hinges on the Mark author using the descriptive, "the High Priest," and does not name the High Priest. Pesch's argument is that, since the High Priest is not named, he must be a contemporary High Priest, whose name would be known to the audience in much the same way as today we would say "the President" and everyone would know we're talking about Obama.

 

The difficulty with this is, Mark also failed to name Joseph, who played a crucial role in Jesus' early life. No mention of Joseph at all, from a man describing Jesus' life from either a first-hand account or recording the first-hand accounts of Jesus' contemporaries, is very troublesome.

[lo country]

As far as the historical accuracy of the Bible here is a good start.

 

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

 

I have learned no discussion ever goes well with religion or politics. We all want "win".

[knapplc]

As far as the historical accuracy of the Bible here is a good start.

 

http://carm.org/can-...orical-document

 

I have learned no discussion ever goes well with religion or politics. We all want "win".

 

This source is a Christian group. What do you think they're going to say?

[Undone]

Awesome site, lo. Great resource.

 

Actually, I honestly deeply enjoy these discussions. I'd rather discuss this topic than any other; I'd say it brings joy to my soul. But I agree that others find it vexing and pervasive, as well as culturally taboo.

 

It's my kind of fun, though.

[Landlord]

As far as the historical accuracy of the Bible here is a good start.

 

http://carm.org/can-...orical-document

 

I have learned no discussion ever goes well with religion or politics. We all want "win".

 

This source is a Christian group. What do you think they're going to say?

 

 

While you are absolutely right, they do a remarkably admirable job at presenting things fairly and without bias. They have tough questions for/against all the major religions, for example, and include Christianity in that.

[Hedley Lamarr]

As far as the historical accuracy of the Bible here is a good start.

 

http://carm.org/can-...orical-document

 

I have learned no discussion ever goes well with religion or politics. We all want "win".

 

This source is a Christian group. What do you think they're going to say?

 

 

While you are absolutely right, they do a remarkably admirable job at presenting things fairly and without bias. They have tough questions for/against all the major religions, for example, and include Christianity in that.

 

They try to show proof for Jesus. That site is not unbiased at all. That is the same site that I discussed just a few posts ago that tries to use these non-biblical sources that don't add up. Obviously we all will agree or disagree on this topic but that site is not unbiased.

[knapplc]

They try to show proof for Jesus. That site is not unbiased at all. That is the same site that I discussed just a few posts ago that tries to use these non-biblical sources that don't add up. Obviously we all will agree or disagree on this topic but that site is not unbiased.

 

Exactly. An unbiased source would not begin with the assertion that the bible is factual and a "good source" and try to prove that notion.

 

Further, the assertion that there are 5,600 copies of the New Testament which were written in the first century AD, is entirely false. Further, the assertion that the "facts" contained therein are 99.5% accurate is laughable (it also raises the very troubling point that the Bible is not infallible - according to these guys, it's .5% fallible), especially when they make no such percentage claim about Herodotus, whose work I just finished reading a couple of months ago and which contain a myriad of verifiable facts.

 

Using this site as any kind of unbiased source is a crock. Call it what it is - a Christian apologist echo chamber. Nothing more.