In this article, the author goes into what Josephus wrote about people. Josephus wrote several pages about boring people. But for Jesus, who allegedly gathered a large following etc, only had a measly two paragraphs written about him. If Jesus was so amazing, why didn't he have more written about him?
I did not realise the amount written about a person has any bearing on whether a person existed.
These paragraphs were not mentioned in any of editions on the writings of Josephus until Eusebius altered them.
I'd like to see your evidence for this. Seeing as the Antiquities of the Jews has no extant manuscripts and that both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts date from the 14th century I would really like to know how you defend a forgery.
Christians are so desperate to prove that Jesus existed that they keep pointing to this even though it's been proven to be false.
It has in no way been proven false. Jesus having existed is the only fact about Jesus you can be sure of. You actually have a view that according to Bart Ehrman is so ridiculous and extreme that not a single person who teaches history, the classics or any related field to ancient figures would hold to this view.
You claim Christians are desperate but at least they do not ignore the complete historical consensus about Jesus when they formulate there believes about him.
"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."
In this article, the author goes into what Josephus wrote about people. Josephus wrote several pages about boring people. But for Jesus, who allegedly gathered a large following etc, only had a measly two paragraphs written about him. If Jesus was so amazing, why didn't he have more written about him?
Why would he have more written about him?
The problem here is you are ascribing the cultural importance of Jesus in our current age to people in a very different era. In our current era, Jesus is the most influential person ever. In that time, Jesus was the leader of a small following of people in Jerusalem, an unimportant part of the Roman Empire from the perspective of the vast majority of people in the world. Jesus was not the only charismatic figure to lead a following in Jerusalem during the Roman Empire. Nor was he the only one to be crucified. Nor was he the only one to be claimed to be the messiah. Nor was he the only one who had a cult following named Jesus.
The Jesus cult really began picking up steam in the second century. During the first century it was a minor cult in a backwater part of the world.
Tens of pages were written about a king, but for Jesus, the "king of kings" only had two paragraphs.
You don't seem to understand that Josephus was not a Christ follower.
It seems more likely that this was an interpolation (a forgery) by Eusebius. These paragraphs were not mentioned in any of editions on the writings of Josephus until Eusebius altered them. Many historians at the time agreed that this was a forgery. But this interpolation keeps coming back for some reason. Christians are so desperate to prove that Jesus existed that they keep pointing to this even though it's been proven to be false.
It is widely believed that part of Josephus' mention is a forgery, in particular the parts extolling Jesus' majesty which are out of character for a non-Christ follower. However, that does not mean all of it is.
Various historians in the article I linked agree that the interpolation was a forgery. The paragraph doesn't flow the way Josephus's writing normally does,
While it could entirely be a forgery, it is argued that much of it is authentic. Almost certainly some of it is, but that does not mean it all is.
and Josephus would have written extensively about Jesus either way.
"Hardware designer, software programmer and author, Bob explores intellectual arguments in favor of Christianity (Christian apologetics) from an atheist perspective and critiques Christianity’s actions in society."
Just so we're clear, this guy is not a scholar of history, does not claim to be, and states his biases right out.
Anyway, let's look at the link:
More damning, scholars almost universally agree that this was not original to Josephus
No, that's not the case at all. Most scholars agree that at least some of this article is fabricated, certainly, but that doesn't mean all of it is false.
From the Jewish standpoint, Josephus was a traitor. Formerly a Jewish commander, he defected to the Roman side during the First Jewish-Roman War in around 67, and his history was written in Rome. Jews had little interest in copying his works to keep them in circulation, and it was mostly Christians who copied them. They might have been motivated to “improve” Josephus.
I don't think anyone denies any of this. The problem is none of this points to the passage not being at all authentic. Once again, just because some of it isn't, doesn't mean any of it is.
A critical review shows why both of these could be later additions, suggesting an original Josephus with no references to Jesus Christ.
No, that doesn't work. Saying something is possible does not suggest that it happened. That is a leap, and it is a leap that is not justified.
Recently I've been extremely interested in the historicity of Jesus Christ, the historical value of the Gospels, non-canonical Gospels, etc.
My question for all followers of Christ is, do you believe that the Gospels are historical documents?
My only problem with modern understanding of Jesus Christ and his life is that the only information we have regarding this subject is heavily biased as it is almost entirely written by Christians. Did Jesus exist at all?
Yes. The old 1611 King James version of the scriptures is His word and the history of Him and His people of the land of Israel. The Holy Scriptures consist of history, biographies, life-lessons, instructions, poems and prophecy. The Book of Daniel chapter 2 gives past and present info on the empires that were and are to be established in the world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome respectively). Many scriptures like: 2nd Kings 17, Isaiah 14 and Deuteronomy 28 give info on what happened to the nation of Israel and what is to become of them in the future. Matthew 24 is prophecy of what's happening on Earth at this very instant and what to do. The Book of Revelation gives prophecy of what's to come (for instance, chapters 7 & 13). Even revelation on the deception being giving to the world at this time (Revelation 2:9/ Revelation 3:9) It can get extremely lengthy with history and the prophecy that has come to pass with 100% accuracy, so it would be best for each individual to have a personal relationship with The Most High God of Israel so He Himself can give revelation that can't be disputed with the carnal thinking of mankind (Jeremiah 29:12-13/ Matthew 7:7).
Recently I've been extremely interested in the historicity of Jesus Christ, the historical value of the Gospels, non-canonical Gospels, etc.
My question for all followers of Christ is, do you believe that the Gospels are historical documents?
My only problem with modern understanding of Jesus Christ and his life is that the only information we have regarding this subject is heavily biased as it is almost entirely written by Christians. Did Jesus exist at all?
Yes. The old 1611 King James version of the scriptures is His word and the history of Him and His people of the land of Israel. The Holy Scriptures consist of history, biographies, life-lessons, instructions, poems and prophecy. The Book of Daniel chapter 2 gives past and present info on the empires that were and are to be established in the world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome respectively). Many scriptures like: 2nd Kings 17, Isaiah 14 and Deuteronomy 28 give info on what happened to the nation of Israel and what is to become of them in the future. Matthew 24 is prophecy of what's happening on Earth at this very instant and what to do. The Book of Revelation gives prophecy of what's to come (for instance, chapters 7 & 13). Even revelation on the deception being giving to the world at this time (Revelation 2:9/ Revelation 3:9) It can get extremely lengthy with history and the prophecy that has come to pass with 100% accuracy, so it would be best for each individual to have a personal relationship with The Most High God of Israel so He Himself can give revelation that can't be disputed with the carnal thinking of mankind (Jeremiah 29:12-13/ Matthew 7:7).
Citing the Bible for proof that Jesus existed is like citing the Lord of the Rings for proof that Gandalf existed. You need extra-biblical sources.
That said, there are extra-biblical indications that some of the events of Jesus' life are true. It's not perfect (there are no contemporary extra-biblical sources to verify things), but as I understand things, the general consensus among historians is that Jesus existed; the question of his divinity is a separate one. (That said, it's not a unanimous opinion among historians.)
Sidenote: Why the KJV, specifically? To continue the Lord of the Rings analogy, citing the KJV specifically as the word of god is kind of like citing Ohlmarks's Swedish translation of the Lord of the Rings as the definitive text. (This is a slight exaggeration: Ohlmarks's translation of LotR was bad enough that he felt justified in accusing LotR fans of arson when his house burned down. The KJV isn't that bad of a translation.)
Recently I've been extremely interested in the historicity of Jesus Christ, the historical value of the Gospels, non-canonical Gospels, etc.
My question for all followers of Christ is, do you believe that the Gospels are historical documents?
My only problem with modern understanding of Jesus Christ and his life is that the only information we have regarding this subject is heavily biased as it is almost entirely written by Christians. Did Jesus exist at all?
Yes. The old 1611 King James version of the scriptures is His word and the history of Him and His people of the land of Israel. The Holy Scriptures consist of history, biographies, life-lessons, instructions, poems and prophecy. The Book of Daniel chapter 2 gives past and present info on the empires that were and are to be established in the world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome respectively). Many scriptures like: 2nd Kings 17, Isaiah 14 and Deuteronomy 28 give info on what happened to the nation of Israel and what is to become of them in the future. Matthew 24 is prophecy of what's happening on Earth at this very instant and what to do. The Book of Revelation gives prophecy of what's to come (for instance, chapters 7 & 13). Even revelation on the deception being giving to the world at this time (Revelation 2:9/ Revelation 3:9) It can get extremely lengthy with history and the prophecy that has come to pass with 100% accuracy, so it would be best for each individual to have a personal relationship with The Most High God of Israel so He Himself can give revelation that can't be disputed with the carnal thinking of mankind (Jeremiah 29:12-13/ Matthew 7:7).
Citing the Bible for proof that Jesus existed is like citing the Lord of the Rings for proof that Gandalf existed. You need extra-biblical sources.
That said, there are extra-biblical indications that some of the events of Jesus' life are true. It's not perfect (there are no contemporary extra-biblical sources to verify things), but as I understand things, the general consensus among historians is that Jesus existed; the question of his divinity is a separate one. (That said, it's not a unanimous opinion among historians.)
Sidenote: Why the KJV, specifically? To continue the Lord of the Rings analogy, citing the KJV specifically as the word of god is kind of like citing Ohlmarks's Swedish translation of the Lord of the Rings as the definitive text. (This is a slight exaggeration: Ohlmarks's translation of LotR was bad enough that he felt justified in accusing LotR fans of arson when his house burned down. The KJV isn't that bad of a translation.)
@solidscheme
For one, you didn't respond to the claim laid against you that the bible isn't a good reference for saying that Jesus existed, either by acknowledging the point or refuting it.
Of further note, you cited Kent Hovind of all people. Couldn't you find someone more reliable?
As best as I can guess (since solidscheme didn't actually say anything about his links), without bothering to finish watching any of the three videos, his link to Hovind's video was to claim that the KJV is the authoritative word of god because his (solidscheme and/or Hovind) interpretation of Psalm 12 is that god will preserve the word of god. Hovind gives "proof" being because the transcribed copies of the Bible had no errors except spelling (which is factually incorrect). Since the other English versions of the Bible aren't the same as the KJV, they're therefore wrong, because god maintains god's word (then why were there changes?) and so anything different from god's word isn't god word (but the KJV is different from the non-English versions of the text which came long before it...)
The second video seems to be "the blacks ruled England" based on the fallacy that England's name is derived from Angel's Land, asserting the English people were the sons of Issac, and therefore black (wuh?). England is derived from Angles Land, for the Anglo-Saxons, from Germany, a word that has absolutely nothing to do with angels, Issac, or the Bible in general. What I find most amusing in the second video is the classical art depicting people with skin tones that aren't milk-white, with their faces circled and implying they're black.
The third video seems to be equating the Moors with blacks. But the Moors were originally of Arab descent, and the name changed over time variously referring to Muslims and subsets of North Africans (the Spanish equivalent today generally refers to Moroccans). Neither Arabs nor North Africans are generally what people would describe as "black". I also don't know what relevance the phenotype of the Moors has to the discussion.
@solidscheme
For one, you didn't respond to the claim laid against you that the bible isn't a good reference for saying that Jesus existed, either by acknowledging the point or refuting it.
Of further note, you cited Kent Hovind of all people. Couldn't you find someone more reliable?
I gave you histoty in the videos above. If you want to dance around that and only look at only specific info, then you really don't want an answer to your question. It is your choice to run away from what was given. Why are you afraid of Hovind?
As best as I can guess (since solidscheme didn't actually say anything about his links), without bothering to finish watching any of the three videos, his link to Hovind's video was to claim that the KJV is the authoritative word of god because his (solidscheme and/or Hovind) interpretation of Psalm 12 is that god will preserve the word of god. Hovind gives "proof" being because the transcribed copies of the Bible had no errors except spelling (which is factually incorrect). Since the other English versions of the Bible aren't the same as the KJV, they're therefore wrong, because god maintains god's word (then why were there changes?) and so anything different from god's word isn't god word (but the KJV is different from the non-English versions of the text which came long before it...)
The second video seems to be "the blacks ruled England" based on the fallacy that England's name is derived from Angel's Land, asserting the English people were the sons of Issac, and therefore black (wuh?). England is derived from Angles Land, for the Anglo-Saxons, from Germany, a word that has absolutely nothing to do with angels, Issac, or the Bible in general. What I find most amusing in the second video is the classical art depicting people with skin tones that aren't milk-white, with their faces circled and implying they're black.
The third video seems to be equating the Moors with blacks. But the Moors were originally of Arab descent, and the name changed over time variously referring to Muslims and subsets of North Africans (the Spanish equivalent today generally refers to Moroccans). Neither Arabs nor North Africans are generally what people would describe as "black". I also don't know what relevance the phenotype of the Moors has to the discussion.
You care to deal with the proof on Europe's real history? We can start with most of the museums in Europe and go from there. Ever heard of the Biblical Destruction Group? Look it up. Moors are a combination of Arabs, Hamites and Israelites. They are all in the same region. Morocco went into Europe and ruled as well. We can also go into Iconoclasm.
I gave you histoty in the videos above. If you want to dance around that and only look at only specific info, then you really don't want an answer to your question. It is your choice to run away from what was given. Why are you afraid of Hovind?
The problem is that you're using a document to assert the truth of the claims made in that document, which is nonsensical. Of the three videos you linked, only Hovind's video even comes close to attempting to answer the challenge, but it does the exact same thing: trying to prove the truth of a claim in a text by citing that text. If someone wrote an essay and cited the essay they were writing as support for one of the fact claims in the essay, they'd be laughed at. It's a case of circular reporting, with the smallest possible circle.
If you want to talk about the historicity of Jesus, you can't use the Bible as your source of proof; you need something else to corroborate the Bible in order to make a coherent argument. It's not even that hard! You could at least try citing Josephus, if nothing else.
I'm not even telling you "Jesus didn't exist". I already said that, as far as I understand things, it is the general consensus among historians that Jesus-the-man existed. Jesus-the-god is a different discussion entirely, one which I have no intention of debating in this thread.
You care to deal with the proof on Europe's real history? We can start with most of the museums in Europe and go from there. Ever heard of the Biblical Destruction Group? Look it up. Moors are a combination of Arabs, Hamites and Israelites. They are all in the same region. Morocco went into Europe and ruled as well. We can also go into Iconoclasm.
What are you talking about? You're jumping all over the map, dude. Literally.
I gave you histoty in the videos above. If you want to dance around that and only look at only specific info, then you really don't want an answer to your question. It is your choice to run away from what was given. Why are you afraid of Hovind?
The problem is that you're using a document to assert the truth of the claims made in that document, which is nonsensical. Of the three videos you linked, only Hovind's video even comes close to attempting to answer the challenge, but it does the exact same thing: trying to prove the truth of a claim in a text by citing that text. If someone wrote an essay and cited the essay they were writing as support for one of the fact claims in the essay, they'd be laughed at. It's a case of circular reporting, with the smallest possible circle.
If you want to talk about the historicity of Jesus, you can't use the Bible as your source of proof; you need something else to corroborate the Bible in order to make a coherent argument. It's not even that hard! You could at least try citing Josephus, if nothing else.
I'm not even telling you "Jesus didn't exist". I already said that, as far as I understand things, it is the general consensus among historians that Jesus-the-man existed. Jesus-the-god is a different discussion entirely, one which I have no intention of debating in this thread.
You care to deal with the proof on Europe's real history? We can start with most of the museums in Europe and go from there. Ever heard of the Biblical Destruction Group? Look it up. Moors are a combination of Arabs, Hamites and Israelites. They are all in the same region. Morocco went into Europe and ruled as well. We can also go into Iconoclasm.
What are you talking about? You're jumping all over the map, dude. Literally.
The Holy scriptures proves itself to be accurate in what is in it (the right version of scripture anyway). IF the scriptures can prove to be accurate, how is that circular? That's like some one saying prove to me water is wet, but you can't use water in your example. The Scriptures ARE the word of the God of Israel so using man's word against what was inspired by God Himself doesn't make sense. If you can prove the scriptures to be not accurate then, that would be your answer right there. That's up to you though. I'll oblige you whenever you're ready.
Here the idea that Jesus existed is supported, but through the idea that the bible's narrative is so poorly fabricated that it seems implausible that one would construct it so unless one is trying to take advantage of a historical figure.
@Solidscheme
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't say 'the bible is the word of god therefore it is accurate- prove me wrong', no, prove yourself right.
EDIT: To be more detailed, a textual account does not have the same reliability as an actual physical representation of the subject matter. Textual accounts have to be shown to be accurate otherwise their claims should be taken as dubious and likely misleading, simply because people lie all the time even if it's not entirely intentional (i.e. we have to consider self-serving bias).
The Holy scriptures proves itself to be accurate in what is in it (the right version of scripture anyway). IF the scriptures can prove to be accurate, how is that circular? That's like some one saying prove to me water is wet, but you can't use water in your example. The Scriptures ARE the word of the God of Israel so using man's word against what was inspired by God Himself doesn't make sense. If you can prove the scriptures to be not accurate then, that would be your answer right there. That's up to you though. I'll oblige you whenever you're ready.
I am not saying "the Bible is inaccurate" (at least, not in the context of this discussion). I am saying "you cannot use the Bible to prove its own accuracy". There exist other sources you can use to make your case. Use them!
You cannot prove a statement accurate by referencing the statement as proof of its accuracy; that's circular. You can prove a statement (or at the very least indicate a likelihood of the statement's correctness) with corroborating evidence. "Steve walked into the grocery store on June 27th." You cannot prove this by referencing itself. However, if you grab the store's security feed, you could find a video record of the event. You could ask people who work at the store or other customers whether they saw the event, whether they saw things that require the event (eg, Steve inside the store -- he probably didn't teleport), or suggest the event is plausible (eg, Steve just outside the store). You could check the store's sales records for Steve's credit card. All of these are potentially corroborating evidence to a fairly mundane event. You can do similar things for the similarly mundane event of "a guy named Jesus lived in this particular area during this particular time frame."
"Wet" is an emergent property of water (and many other liquids, but let's stick to water), not a truth value of water, so you've got a pretty piss-poor analogy. That said, nobody uses water to prove that water is wet, they use their sense of touch and water's interaction with other materials to conclude "wetness". Despite the poor analogy, we're still able to use multiple methods of detection to corroborate the conclusion of "wet".
You also still seem to be hung up on the "right" version of scripture, by which I assume you mean the KJV. Why is that the "right" version of scripture? Why isn't the right version at least in the original language? You realize that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, within the first few centuries CE, right? It wasn't written in English in the first decade of the 1600s. The Old Testament (as a Christian document) was also written in Greek, although the Hebrew Bible (which was translated into the Old Testament) was written in a combination of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic.
As a History Major I have used the Torah + Old Testament + New Testament + The Noble Quran as primary and secondary sources. Instead of fighting each other Islam actually helps accurately record the authenticity of YHWH (Allah) and Jesus Christ. The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance. The word was spoken through the prophets to judges and kings to intercede for the people as the Levites made atonement for them. Jesus was the once and for all sacrificial lamb and along with the angels and saints. The scripture is used for people to have a direct connection to God through the law.
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources. He will be able to explain everything and has been a trusted source that has converted more people in history than any single human being. He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ (found in Matthew and Luke)
As a History Major I have used the Torah + Old Testament + New Testament + The Noble Quran as primary and secondary sources. Instead of fighting each other Islam actually helps accurately record the authenticity of YHWH (Allah) and Jesus Christ. The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance. The word was spoken through the prophets to judges and kings to intercede for the people as the Levites made atonement for them. Jesus was the once and for all sacrificial lamb and along with the angels and saints. The scripture is used for people to have a direct connection to God through the law.
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources. He will be able to explain everything and has been a trusted source that has converted more people in history than any single human being. He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ (found in Matthew and Luke)
Isn't the Quran just a rewrite of the Bible, since Muslims think that the Jews corrupted it? You can't use a religous text to confirm another one. Also I'm pretty sure Blinking Spirit has pointed out that the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified and that an impostor took his place. Also pretty sure Muslims don't think he is the son of god or divine or whatever, just that he is another prophet.
[/quote] Isn't the Quran just a rewrite of the Bible, since Muslims think that the Jews corrupted it? You can't use a religous text to confirm another one. Also I'm pretty sure Blinking Spirit has pointed out that the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified and that an impostor took his place. Also pretty sure Muslims don't think he is the son of god or divine or whatever, just that he is another prophet.[/quote]
Jesus is the high priest of Melchizedek. Galatians 1:6-9 clarifies any disparities in authenticity.
As a History Major I have used the Torah + Old Testament + New Testament + The Noble Quran as primary and secondary sources. Instead of fighting each other Islam actually helps accurately record the authenticity of YHWH (Allah) and Jesus Christ. The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance. The word was spoken through the prophets to judges and kings to intercede for the people as the Levites made atonement for them. Jesus was the once and for all sacrificial lamb and along with the angels and saints. The scripture is used for people to have a direct connection to God through the law.
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources. He will be able to explain everything and has been a trusted source that has converted more people in history than any single human being. He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ (found in Matthew and Luke)
Isn't the Quran just a rewrite of the Bible, since Muslims think that the Jews corrupted it? You can't use a religous text to confirm another one. Also I'm pretty sure Blinking Spirit has pointed out that the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified and that an impostor took his place. Also pretty sure Muslims don't think he is the son of god or divine or whatever, just that he is another prophet.
Jesus is the high priest of Melchizedek. Galatians 1:6-9 clarifies any disparities in authenticity.
Not using 1 credible source to back up another is like not using the amendments to back up the constitution. even if the amendments are silly like prohibition + the reversal contradiction (quran tells people to observe the torah in entirety even though muslims don't passover and made up ramadan)
As a History Major I have used the Torah + Old Testament + New Testament + The Noble Quran as primary and secondary sources. Instead of fighting each other Islam actually helps accurately record the authenticity of YHWH (Allah) and Jesus Christ. The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance. The word was spoken through the prophets to judges and kings to intercede for the people as the Levites made atonement for them. Jesus was the once and for all sacrificial lamb and along with the angels and saints. The scripture is used for people to have a direct connection to God through the law.
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources. He will be able to explain everything and has been a trusted source that has converted more people in history than any single human being. He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ (found in Matthew and Luke)
Isn't the Quran just a rewrite of the Bible, since Muslims think that the Jews corrupted it? You can't use a religous text to confirm another one. Also I'm pretty sure Blinking Spirit has pointed out that the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified and that an impostor took his place. Also pretty sure Muslims don't think he is the son of god or divine or whatever, just that he is another prophet.
Jesus is the high priest of Melchizedek. Galatians 1:6-9 clarifies any disparities in authenticity.
Not using 1 credible source to back up another is like not using the amendments to back up the constitution. even if the amendments are silly like prohibition + the reversal contradiction (quran tells people to observe the torah in entirety even though muslims don't passover and made up ramadan)
A religious text is not an historical document. It's fiction.
As a History Major I have used the Torah + Old Testament + New Testament + The Noble Quran as primary and secondary sources. Instead of fighting each other Islam actually helps accurately record the authenticity of YHWH (Allah) and Jesus Christ. The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance. The word was spoken through the prophets to judges and kings to intercede for the people as the Levites made atonement for them. Jesus was the once and for all sacrificial lamb and along with the angels and saints. The scripture is used for people to have a direct connection to God through the law.
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources. He will be able to explain everything and has been a trusted source that has converted more people in history than any single human being. He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ (found in Matthew and Luke)
Isn't the Quran just a rewrite of the Bible, since Muslims think that the Jews corrupted it? You can't use a religous text to confirm another one. Also I'm pretty sure Blinking Spirit has pointed out that the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified and that an impostor took his place. Also pretty sure Muslims don't think he is the son of god or divine or whatever, just that he is another prophet.
Jesus is the high priest of Melchizedek. Galatians 1:6-9 clarifies any disparities in authenticity.
Not using 1 credible source to back up another is like not using the amendments to back up the constitution. even if the amendments are silly like prohibition + the reversal contradiction (quran tells people to observe the torah in entirety even though muslims don't passover and made up ramadan)
A religious text is not an historical document. It's fiction.
The letters of Paul are historical documents as they have never changed and have influenced 2000 years of the world, it records the 70+ apostles establishing+regulating the first gentile churches. Mark was sent to Alexandria in Egypt where he established the Coptic Church. If paper doesn't appease you let the architecture tell the tales they didnt build themselves there must have been some support or evidence for people to agree upon similar things.
A religious text can be historical while also containing religious elements of no historical significance. For a really basic example, consider that the Torah/Old Testament records that some number of Jews were captured and taken into Babylon because King Jehoiakim rebelled from the Babylonian empire and instead joined in an alliance with Egypt.
Obviously there's a lot of religion mixed up in the Old Testament's account of this (since a fair portion of it comes from the viewpoint of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, but the fact that the Jews were defeated and taken to Babylon is absolutely true and backed up by archaeological finds and sources like the Babylonian Chronicles.
As a History Major I have used the Torah + Old Testament + New Testament + The Noble Quran as primary and secondary sources. Instead of fighting each other Islam actually helps accurately record the authenticity of YHWH (Allah) and Jesus Christ. The law was given to Moses and is the most valued earthly inheritance. The word was spoken through the prophets to judges and kings to intercede for the people as the Levites made atonement for them. Jesus was the once and for all sacrificial lamb and along with the angels and saints. The scripture is used for people to have a direct connection to God through the law.
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources. He will be able to explain everything and has been a trusted source that has converted more people in history than any single human being. He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ (found in Matthew and Luke)
Isn't the Quran just a rewrite of the Bible, since Muslims think that the Jews corrupted it? You can't use a religous text to confirm another one. Also I'm pretty sure Blinking Spirit has pointed out that the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified and that an impostor took his place. Also pretty sure Muslims don't think he is the son of god or divine or whatever, just that he is another prophet.
Jesus is the high priest of Melchizedek. Galatians 1:6-9 clarifies any disparities in authenticity.
Not using 1 credible source to back up another is like not using the amendments to back up the constitution. even if the amendments are silly like prohibition + the reversal contradiction (quran tells people to observe the torah in entirety even though muslims don't passover and made up ramadan)
A religious text is not an historical document. It's fiction.
The letters of Paul are historical documents as they have never changed and have influenced 2000 years of the world, it records the 70+ apostles establishing+regulating the first gentile churches. Mark was sent to Alexandria in Egypt where he established the Coptic Church. If paper doesn't appease you let the architecture tell the tales they didnt build themselves there must have been some support or evidence for people to agree upon similar things.
Independence Day has the white house, which is a real building, and yet it was destroyed by aliens in the movie. Even though we know the white house exists, are you really going to believe that aliens destroyed it? No, it's a work of fiction. The Bible makes extraordinary claims such as someone coming back from the dead, and having him walk on water and all tons of other bull*****. It also borrows from other religions. Just because the buildings are real doesn't mean the Bible is a historical document. It is fiction with real buildings.
A religious text can be historical while also containing religious elements of no historical significance. For a really basic example, consider that the Torah/Old Testament records that some number of Jews were captured and taken into Babylon because King Jehoiakim rebelled from the Babylonian empire and instead joined in an alliance with Egypt.
Obviously there's a lot of religion mixed up in the Old Testament's account of this (since a fair portion of it comes from the viewpoint of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, but the fact that the Jews were defeated and taken to Babylon is absolutely true and backed up by archaeological finds and sources like the Babylonian Chronicles.
During/after the exile i'm pretty sure a large number of jews began to worship Zeus. i feel like i would get less criticism on this thread for joining them. thanx for the post i respect the effort
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/11/josephus-a-reliable-source/
Just so we're clear, this guy is not a scholar of history, does not claim to be, and states his biases right out.
Anyway, let's look at the link:
No, that's not the case at all. Most scholars agree that at least some of this article is fabricated, certainly, but that doesn't mean all of it is false.
I don't think anyone denies any of this. The problem is none of this points to the passage not being at all authentic. Once again, just because some of it isn't, doesn't mean any of it is.
No, that doesn't work. Saying something is possible does not suggest that it happened. That is a leap, and it is a leap that is not justified.
Yes. The old 1611 King James version of the scriptures is His word and the history of Him and His people of the land of Israel. The Holy Scriptures consist of history, biographies, life-lessons, instructions, poems and prophecy. The Book of Daniel chapter 2 gives past and present info on the empires that were and are to be established in the world (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome respectively). Many scriptures like: 2nd Kings 17, Isaiah 14 and Deuteronomy 28 give info on what happened to the nation of Israel and what is to become of them in the future. Matthew 24 is prophecy of what's happening on Earth at this very instant and what to do. The Book of Revelation gives prophecy of what's to come (for instance, chapters 7 & 13). Even revelation on the deception being giving to the world at this time (Revelation 2:9/ Revelation 3:9) It can get extremely lengthy with history and the prophecy that has come to pass with 100% accuracy, so it would be best for each individual to have a personal relationship with The Most High God of Israel so He Himself can give revelation that can't be disputed with the carnal thinking of mankind (Jeremiah 29:12-13/ Matthew 7:7).
That said, there are extra-biblical indications that some of the events of Jesus' life are true. It's not perfect (there are no contemporary extra-biblical sources to verify things), but as I understand things, the general consensus among historians is that Jesus existed; the question of his divinity is a separate one. (That said, it's not a unanimous opinion among historians.)
Sidenote: Why the KJV, specifically? To continue the Lord of the Rings analogy, citing the KJV specifically as the word of god is kind of like citing Ohlmarks's Swedish translation of the Lord of the Rings as the definitive text. (This is a slight exaggeration: Ohlmarks's translation of LotR was bad enough that he felt justified in accusing LotR fans of arson when his house burned down. The KJV isn't that bad of a translation.)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Jeremiah 29:12-13/ Matthew 7:7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckHlhvo5nbo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lyVBQ4PypA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHIOwrk03vI
For one, you didn't respond to the claim laid against you that the bible isn't a good reference for saying that Jesus existed, either by acknowledging the point or refuting it.
Of further note, you cited Kent Hovind of all people. Couldn't you find someone more reliable?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The second video seems to be "the blacks ruled England" based on the fallacy that England's name is derived from Angel's Land, asserting the English people were the sons of Issac, and therefore black (wuh?). England is derived from Angles Land, for the Anglo-Saxons, from Germany, a word that has absolutely nothing to do with angels, Issac, or the Bible in general. What I find most amusing in the second video is the classical art depicting people with skin tones that aren't milk-white, with their faces circled and implying they're black.
The third video seems to be equating the Moors with blacks. But the Moors were originally of Arab descent, and the name changed over time variously referring to Muslims and subsets of North Africans (the Spanish equivalent today generally refers to Moroccans). Neither Arabs nor North Africans are generally what people would describe as "black". I also don't know what relevance the phenotype of the Moors has to the discussion.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I gave you histoty in the videos above. If you want to dance around that and only look at only specific info, then you really don't want an answer to your question. It is your choice to run away from what was given. Why are you afraid of Hovind?
You care to deal with the proof on Europe's real history? We can start with most of the museums in Europe and go from there. Ever heard of the Biblical Destruction Group? Look it up. Moors are a combination of Arabs, Hamites and Israelites. They are all in the same region. Morocco went into Europe and ruled as well. We can also go into Iconoclasm.
If you want to talk about the historicity of Jesus, you can't use the Bible as your source of proof; you need something else to corroborate the Bible in order to make a coherent argument. It's not even that hard! You could at least try citing Josephus, if nothing else.
I'm not even telling you "Jesus didn't exist". I already said that, as far as I understand things, it is the general consensus among historians that Jesus-the-man existed. Jesus-the-god is a different discussion entirely, one which I have no intention of debating in this thread.
What are you talking about? You're jumping all over the map, dude. Literally.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
The Holy scriptures proves itself to be accurate in what is in it (the right version of scripture anyway). IF the scriptures can prove to be accurate, how is that circular? That's like some one saying prove to me water is wet, but you can't use water in your example. The Scriptures ARE the word of the God of Israel so using man's word against what was inspired by God Himself doesn't make sense. If you can prove the scriptures to be not accurate then, that would be your answer right there. That's up to you though. I'll oblige you whenever you're ready.
Here the idea that Jesus existed is supported, but through the idea that the bible's narrative is so poorly fabricated that it seems implausible that one would construct it so unless one is trying to take advantage of a historical figure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
And this one questions the evidence that Jesus even existed at all.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't say 'the bible is the word of god therefore it is accurate- prove me wrong', no, prove yourself right.
EDIT: To be more detailed, a textual account does not have the same reliability as an actual physical representation of the subject matter. Textual accounts have to be shown to be accurate otherwise their claims should be taken as dubious and likely misleading, simply because people lie all the time even if it's not entirely intentional (i.e. we have to consider self-serving bias).
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You cannot prove a statement accurate by referencing the statement as proof of its accuracy; that's circular. You can prove a statement (or at the very least indicate a likelihood of the statement's correctness) with corroborating evidence. "Steve walked into the grocery store on June 27th." You cannot prove this by referencing itself. However, if you grab the store's security feed, you could find a video record of the event. You could ask people who work at the store or other customers whether they saw the event, whether they saw things that require the event (eg, Steve inside the store -- he probably didn't teleport), or suggest the event is plausible (eg, Steve just outside the store). You could check the store's sales records for Steve's credit card. All of these are potentially corroborating evidence to a fairly mundane event. You can do similar things for the similarly mundane event of "a guy named Jesus lived in this particular area during this particular time frame."
"Wet" is an emergent property of water (and many other liquids, but let's stick to water), not a truth value of water, so you've got a pretty piss-poor analogy. That said, nobody uses water to prove that water is wet, they use their sense of touch and water's interaction with other materials to conclude "wetness". Despite the poor analogy, we're still able to use multiple methods of detection to corroborate the conclusion of "wet".
You also still seem to be hung up on the "right" version of scripture, by which I assume you mean the KJV. Why is that the "right" version of scripture? Why isn't the right version at least in the original language? You realize that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, within the first few centuries CE, right? It wasn't written in English in the first decade of the 1600s. The Old Testament (as a Christian document) was also written in Greek, although the Hebrew Bible (which was translated into the Old Testament) was written in a combination of Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
You must read all the letters/books of Paul to realize they are primary sources. He will be able to explain everything and has been a trusted source that has converted more people in history than any single human being. He explains the divinity of Christ and also explains how to not live in sin and a history of the lineage of Christ (found in Matthew and Luke)
Isn't the Quran just a rewrite of the Bible, since Muslims think that the Jews corrupted it? You can't use a religous text to confirm another one. Also I'm pretty sure Blinking Spirit has pointed out that the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified and that an impostor took his place. Also pretty sure Muslims don't think he is the son of god or divine or whatever, just that he is another prophet.
Jesus is the high priest of Melchizedek. Galatians 1:6-9 clarifies any disparities in authenticity.
Jesus is the high priest of Melchizedek. Galatians 1:6-9 clarifies any disparities in authenticity.
Not using 1 credible source to back up another is like not using the amendments to back up the constitution. even if the amendments are silly like prohibition + the reversal contradiction (quran tells people to observe the torah in entirety even though muslims don't passover and made up ramadan)
A religious text is not an historical document. It's fiction.
The letters of Paul are historical documents as they have never changed and have influenced 2000 years of the world, it records the 70+ apostles establishing+regulating the first gentile churches. Mark was sent to Alexandria in Egypt where he established the Coptic Church. If paper doesn't appease you let the architecture tell the tales they didnt build themselves there must have been some support or evidence for people to agree upon similar things.
Obviously there's a lot of religion mixed up in the Old Testament's account of this (since a fair portion of it comes from the viewpoint of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, but the fact that the Jews were defeated and taken to Babylon is absolutely true and backed up by archaeological finds and sources like the Babylonian Chronicles.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Independence Day has the white house, which is a real building, and yet it was destroyed by aliens in the movie. Even though we know the white house exists, are you really going to believe that aliens destroyed it? No, it's a work of fiction. The Bible makes extraordinary claims such as someone coming back from the dead, and having him walk on water and all tons of other bull*****. It also borrows from other religions. Just because the buildings are real doesn't mean the Bible is a historical document. It is fiction with real buildings.
The Bible is a tall tale.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
During/after the exile i'm pretty sure a large number of jews began to worship Zeus. i feel like i would get less criticism on this thread for joining them. thanx for the post i respect the effort