05 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIs it their lack of so-called magic tricks that makes the existence of Herod the
the utter unreasonableness is from your false assumptions. don't presume to know what "people like me" are willing to accept.
we are talking about evidence for the existence of jesus, not evidence for the existence of alexander, so try to stay on topic.
the only secular sources you were able to present were 1) non-contemporary and 2) displayed evid ...[text shortened]... the evidence. people much more dedicated than you or i have tried and come up with nothing.
Great and Alexander the Great and others more credible to you than the
existence of a religious leader that established the Christian Church?
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobWho knows? I was not there, so I could only speculate like you. I was only
If it was common place to destroy a piece of manuscript after it had been copied how come there are still thousands of pieces of manuscript and papyri still in existence? You're not making any sense.
providing you with additional information to consider in your speculations.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWhat about the eyewitness testimonies in writing. Don't that count?
the utter unreasonableness is from your false assumptions. don't presume to know what "people like me" are willing to accept.
we are talking about evidence for the existence of jesus, not evidence for the existence of alexander, so try to stay on topic.
the only secular sources you were able to present were 1) non-contemporary and 2) displayed evid ...[text shortened]... the evidence. people much more dedicated than you or i have tried and come up with nothing.
05 Apr 12
19 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob
The earliest fragments are on average dated around 150-200 years after the death of Jesus, you seriously think that's close enough to dispel any uncertainty over their accuracy.
The earliest fragments are on average dated around 150-200 years after the death of Jesus, you seriously think that's close enough to dispel any uncertainty over their accuracy.
The "Apostolic Fathers spanned the years of about 70 - 150 A.D. We can examine their citations of the New Testament books and see that before your date of approx. 150 A.D. quotations from the books of the New Testament were extensively used.
Some examples (citations, allusions, quotations, etc from NT books):
1.) The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabus (c. 70-79) cites Matt. 22:14, 44-45; and 26:31. It alludes to Matt. 20:16; John 6:51; Romans 4:11; 2 Peter 3:8. The quotations are loose as if done perhaps by memory rather than from a manuscript copy.
2.) Corinthian letter by Clement of Rome (c. 95 - 97) More precise quotations - Matt. 5:7; 7:1-2; 13:3; 18:6; 26:24. He quotes also Mark 4:3; Luke 8:5. He makes strong allusions to Mark 9:42; 14:21; and Luke 17:1-2 and 22:22. Clement further quotes Acts 20:35 and Titus 3:1. Clement also quotes Hebrews 1:3-5,7,13 3:5 as well as 1 Peter 4:8; 5:5. And it is possible that Clement also alluded to Revelation 22:12.
3.) The Seven Epistles of Ignatius (c. 110-117) which were written in route to his martyrdom in Rome. He seems to either quote by memory or make allusions to Matt. 12:33; Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 1:20; Galatians 5:21; Colossians 1:23; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5.
In his letter Magnesians he cited Matt. 27:52; John 5:19,30; Acts 1:25.
The Trallians letter contains quotes from Matt. 15:13; 1 Corinthians 4:1; 9:27; 15:12; and Colossians 1:16.
In his letter Romans, Ignatius used John 4:10; 7:38, 42; 1 Corinthians 15:8-9; 1 Thess. 2:4; 2 Thess. 3:5; and 2 Timothy 2:8.
The Philippians epistle cited Matt. 15:13; John 3:8; 1 Cor. 2:10; 6:9-10 and 10:16-17.
His writing to the Smyrnaeans cited Matt. 3:16; 19:12; Luke 24:39; Acts 10:41; Romans 1:3; Ephesians 2:16; Philippians 3:15; 4:13 and 2 Timothy 1:16.
In his personal letter to Polycarp, Ignatius cited for example Matt. 8:17; 10:16; Ephesians 4:2; 5:25,29; 1 Timothy 6:2; and 2 Timothy 2:4 .
4.) Philippians by Polycarp was written (c. 110-135). Among his large number of NT quotations are Matt. 5:3,10; 5:44; 6:13; Mark 9:35; 14:38; 15; Acts 2:24; Romans 12:10; 14:10; 1 Cor. 6:2; 14:25; 15:58; 2 Cor. 3:2; 4:14; 8:21; Gal. 1:1; 4:26; 5:21; 6:18; Phil. 2:16; 3:18; 2 Thess. 1:4; 3:15; 1 Timothy 2:1; 4:15; 6:7,10; 2 Timothy 2:12; 4:10; 1 Peter 1:8; 1:13,21; 2:11; 2:12, 17; 2:22,24; 3:9; 4:7; 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 7. .
5.) The Sherpherd of Hermas (c. 115-140) contains "free quotations, apparently from memory and allusions to the New Testament. All three portions of Shepherd quote the New Testament - Matt. 26:4 although it may be a parallel passage in Mark 14:21. He quotes Matt. 19:9 and cites Mark 5:23-24. Further samples of his quotations are 1 Cor. 7:40; Hebrews 11:33; James 1:21; 2:7; 4:7; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:7; 1 John 2:27; Revelation 21:14.
For space sake I will leave out quotations of the NT from Teaching of the Twelve, or Didache (c. 120-150), The Epistle to Diognetus (c. 150) and Exposition of the Lord's Oracles (c. 130-140).
The point of this post is that from the above citations it can be seen that BEFORE A.D. 150 every book of the New Testament was quoted clearly, with the possible exception of Philemon and 3 John.
This information can be obtained from A General Introduction to the Bible, Giesler and Nix, Moody Press, chapter 25 - "Patristic Witnesses To The Text of Scripture," pgs. 348-350)
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsthis conversation is not about the existence of herod or alexander and i have not made any comments concerning either one. stop making assumptions and try to stay on topic.
Is it their lack of so-called magic tricks that makes the existence of Herod the
Great and Alexander the Great and others more credible to you than the
existence of a religious leader that established the Christian Church?
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindscount for what? if i told you: "bill told me that jill saw andrew stealing a can of beans," what you would be hearing is something called hearsay. i cannot present jill as an eyewitness, ergo there is no eyewitness.
What about the eyewitness testimonies in writing. Don't that count?
you don't have any eyewitness accounts. paul never saw jesus. the mysterious author of luke confesses to hearsay knowledge at the beginning of the gospel. the other gospel authors follow the pattern of writing in the 3rd person, never claiming to have been witness to the recorded events.
there is no record of jesus's execution. no contemporary historian mentions him. all this is very damaging, but there is more. we don't just have the 4 gospels, we have many more that were suppressed. these gospel accounts that revealed the growing legend of a mystical figure called christ.
so history shows two things very clearly:
1 - that there is no contemporary historical account of jesus
2 - all that we know about jesus is hearsay.
3 - that there was a legend of a mystical figure called christ.
all this shows that there may or may not have been someone called jesus christ and his legend was growing with each retelling of the tale until some men decided to canonize their vision of the mythical figure.
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou need to read the New Testament of the Holy Bible. There you will find
count for what? if i told you: "bill told me that jill saw andrew stealing a can of beans," what you would be hearing is something called hearsay. i cannot present jill as an eyewitness, ergo there is no eyewitness.
you don't have any eyewitness accounts. paul never saw jesus. the mysterious author of luke confesses to hearsay knowledge at the begi ...[text shortened]... telling of the tale until some men decided to canonize their vision of the mythical figure.
eyewitness testimony in writing and supported by other eyewitness testimony.
HalleluYah !!!
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsall that is hearsay stories about alleged eyewitnesses. there is no evidence that those so called eyewitnesses existed.
You need to read the New Testament of the Holy Bible. There you will find
eyewitness testimony in writing and supported by other eyewitness testimony.
HalleluYah !!!
06 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAll you really have said and can say is - you have not yet been forced to believe the New Testament.
all that is hearsay stories about alleged eyewitnesses. there is no evidence that those so called eyewitnesses existed.
I don't know about anyone else. I am not expecting you to be coerced or forced to believe the New Testament.
06 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
count for what? if i told you: "bill told me that jill saw andrew stealing a can of beans," what you would be hearing is something called hearsay. i cannot present jill as an eyewitness, ergo there is no eyewitness.
you don't have any eyewitness accounts. paul never saw jesus. the mysterious author of luke confesses to hearsay knowledge at the begi telling of the tale until some men decided to canonize their vision of the mythical figure.
you don't have any eyewitness accounts. paul never saw jesus. the mysterious author of luke confesses to hearsay knowledge at the beginning of the gospel. the other gospel authors follow the pattern of writing in the 3rd person, never claiming to have been witness to the recorded events.
Paul's personal testimony is that he saw the resurrected and ascended Christ. I am not going to quote the passages for you.
Luke writes exactly like an investigative journalist and serious historian in both the Gospel of Luke and in the book of Acts.
Luke's account of the Gospel has, in some details, been confirmed by archeology. For years there was skepticism over the so-called pavement upon which Luke says Jesus stood before Pilate. Then archeology finally discovered that such a pavement did exist. Prior to that Luke's details were in question as to authenticity.
Luke, from the indications of his writing in the book of Acts, was a personal traveling companion at least some of the time with Paul.
Paul's letter of Second Timothy confirms that close to Paul's (likely) martyrdom only Luke was left there to encourage him. I will not quote it for you now.
Other information which enfluences my thinking on this.
The writer of the books of Acts so overlaps Peter's history with Paul's history, evidently give this impression, I think:
"The Christian church owes very much to the work of the Apostle Peter. However, his initial labors were shadowed somewhat by the emmergence of one Apostle Paul. However, you should realize that it was not because of any real 'failure' on Peter's part. He remained a faithful witness throughout his life. But the worker Paul expanded and somewhat dwarfed the former worker's labors."
This is the flavor of the intention of the writer that I get as he overlaps Peter's ministry with that of Paul's.
This is all very plausible journalistic writing albeit first century.
Some of you skeptics should just come to grips with a few things:
1.) There could exist propaganda which is true.
2.) There could exist historical events so momentous that some would give their lives and labors to the work of reporting them to the world and future generations.
3.) Stop looking for a first century atheist to confirm for you that Jesus was considered by that one as the Son of God.
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillnobody has to confirm he was the son of god. the fact remains that no contemporary historian (not necessarily atheist) mentions jesus at all, never mind him being the son of god.
3.) Stop looking for a first century atheist to confirm for you that Jesus was considered by that one as the Son of God.
all you have is hearsay, your argument has not changed this fact.
06 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillthis statement makes no sense in the context of the discussion.
All you really have said and can say is - you have not yet been [b] forced to believe the New Testament.
I don't know about anyone else. I am not expecting you to be coerced or forced to believe the New Testament.[/b]