Moderator: Moderators
If God really loved the people of the world so much, why could he not come up with a plan that would have more people saved?John 3:16 wrote:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
I didn't say any of those disputed claims. That is your contrived list of partial data loaded with special meaning to you. I am sure there is much Greek and Roman influence. What do you think you are trying to say? Are you just tossing out random places things and people and them claiming the bible is truth and fact?So, given your criteria,, you don't belive their was a Paul that traveled and evangelized. There was no Jesus on the earth. There was no King Herod. There was not Church in Ephesus. John Baptizing in the River never happenend. No Greek influence. And then Roman influence in the area
I don't even thing you understand it. I am sure you are not selling it with that pitch.Sorry, don't buy it.
AB wrote:There is a good possiblity that there was a Paul, Herod, Jesus, John, etc... Obviously there was at least one person who wrote about these events. But that doesn't make it history. Once again, funny how only those included in the bible are privy to this information of christs miracles and divinity etc... In no other historical data is his teachings/miracles listed except the bible. It makes one wonder if only those who wrote in the bible were literate during christs life, if christ specifically said let no other but these apostles write about my workings, or if maybe someone was just trying an attempt at their first fantasy book. The romans did list greek influence, as well as crucifying people, and doubtless one was named jesus (it was and still is a popular name). But unless a record is written for historical value and not testimonial value, one has to question its authenticity. By this I mean, the author has nothing to lose or gain by writing it and is not biased in how they depict it. If I am not mistaking, christ told his gospels to write his story. Thereby making it biased and subject to testifying for the one who directs it to be written.Cathar1950 wrote:So, given your criteria,, you don't belive their was a Paul that traveled and evangelized. There was no Jesus on the earth. There was no King Herod. There was not Church in Ephesus. John Baptizing in the River never happenend. No Greek influence. And then Roman influence in the areaAB wrote:There are no historical accounts in the bible there is some history but the NT is largely rhetoric and apologetic in nature. They are religious and not historical eyewitness accounts. Letters only tell you about the writer and many of them are at best questionable. Only 7 of Paul’s are believed to his and no other letters are known to be the reported writers. They are questionable to even conservative scholars. They seem to be late traditions of many communities. So there is no “generic come-back” it is just a statement of fact. You keep hearing it because it is true and reasonable. Even if you could some how prove it was something other, what ever that would mean, for one work among the 66 that would only account for one and not be a blanket endorsement for the whole thing.McCulloch wrote:Again wrong. Historical figures have made claims with regard to the miraculous activities of Jesus, none which has been validated or verified by other historical accounts.
quote]
I love it.. the generic come-back of: other historical accounts(other than the historical account in the bible) is not present.. so therefore it is not valid. Weak.
So, , how many historical accounts are need to validate it in your book?
Sorry, don't buy it.
Meaning you couldn't prove him wrong so you're taking your marbles and going home. Sure, that makes a lot of sense. All you'd have to have done is actually PROVE that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies. The problem is, you can't, he didn't. And now you're mad at Goat for pointing it out.Biker wrote:I am terminating dialogue with you, you do alot of condescending attacks toward me and offer no proof just ramblings.I wont be responding to your posts.Thanks for nothing Goat!
AB wrote:Just one.. that is contemporary, and a primary source.McCulloch wrote:Again wrong. Historical figures have made claims with regard to the miraculous activities of Jesus, none which has been validated or verified by other historical accounts.
quote]
I love it.. the generic come-back of: other historical accounts(other than the historical account in the bible) is not present.. so therefore it is not valid. Weak.
So, , how many historical accounts are need to validate it in your book?
That is what the Gospel accounts are not. They are not contemporary, nor are they are primary source. They are not even secondary sources.
Well, Augustus has some coins printed up. Here is a link that showsCathar1950 wrote:Was Augustus the Son of God and Savior of the world? It was written of him. Do you think the people that wrote that were crazy or lying?
The guy that wrote it did so in his lifetime. As far as the validity of the scriptures go and their authenticity these concepts were doubted by many church fathers and Christian scholars long before any non-Christian scholars studied the writings. There are a lot of inside critics.
If they say Jesus was the Christ and God all you have is someone’s opinion and belief it is not proof that it is true. Now given the late nature of the writings in various communities and the ease to which the made changes and redactions any one in the right mind would question them. It is a small selection of a group of one line of tradition that felt compelled to tell one story and have one creed and faith. I think it was premature and they made some poor choices and failed to tell one coherent story. We have no problem separating myths of Lincoln or Washington from history yet there is all kinds of supporting evidence while we discard the myths as understand them for what they are and the reasons behind their creations but when it comes to Jesus you want ever thing written to be taken literally and at face value even though there is a trail of editing and obvious borrowing from other myths and religious traditions.
Yet when others do what we all do as we study people such as Lincoln and Washington separating fact from myth when it comes to applying it to your pet views of the Bible and Jesus you say we are non-Christians being biased and condescending. Yet many Christian scholars and theists are among those that question. It is clear who has the bias and who is wearing the blinders. It is also clear who is being condescending.
Because nobody in their right mind thins Josephus actually wrote those passages in Jewish Antiquities?Cathar1950 wrote:How could Josephus be wrong he was Jewish and he should know who the Messiah is?
Of course , many people have been wrong about who the Messiah will be.Cathar1950 wrote:I don't know how you could deny the evidence Goat.
Then there is Vespasian, Roman emperor (A.D. 69-79) and Josephus said he was the ruler to come out of Jerusalem to rule the world and the star prophecy was about him.
How could Josephus be wrong he was Jewish and he should know who the Messiah is?
