The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death. That would be like a 60 year old writing about Vietnam nowadays. Is that so hard to believe? That they might get the basics right? Are memories or the ability of Romans to do historical research and interviewing that bad that you couldn't believe a single word of it?ATOMIC_TOAST
ehh, you might be thinking of Thallus, but Tacitus published his work in 116 AD.
Of course all of the books in the bible are separate, but they all come together to form one book. The books in the bible are so short that they should be considered chapters. The people who wrote these "books" all had one thing in common, they weren't at all unbias. There is no proof for the existence of Jesus, his birth, his death, his rise from the grave or his divinity.
ElectronicMagic
they were and are seperate books, but the christians compiled them under one cover, and no, they are not "chapters" :lol:. thirdly, there is no such thing as "unbias", but its irrelevant because they are still the best sources on the life of Jesus. fourth, there is evidence from teh Gospels and epistles that Jesus lived, and died, and rose again on easter morning.
[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]
I never asked what the bible said about how old the earth is. I asked YOU. So you didn't answer my question, I just want to know. So are you going to answer?
ElectronicMagic
It's a simple question, if he is afraid to answer it then that's all he has to say and I'd drop it. its still irrelevant b/c its a red herring.
now, about this "jesus sequel" business, the stone's ink is far too faded to tell the entirety of its original contents, and Dr. Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of the new testament of Denver Seminary would like to weigh in:
no threat here! Submitted by Craig Blomberg on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 01:59. Thanks, Scot, for beating me to the punch on this. :) I just read the wire service announcement in this morning's Denver Post. As usual, someone finds a way to imagine that this would challenge historic Christian faith, since it would supposedly threaten the uniqueness of Jesus' resurrection. In fact, it would do no such thing. What Christians claim is unique is that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead to life unending, not that the idea of a resurrected Messiah was without precedent. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:4actually believes that Christ was raised "according to the Scriptures." Whichever passages he imagined deriving this idea from (Hosea 6:2? Psalm 16:10?) could have suggested themselves to other Jewish writers as well. While there are instances in which the New Testament typologically applies an Old Testament text to a New Testament event in unprecedented ways, suggested first only by the actions of Jesus himself, the more one finds evidence for other Jews thinking similarly (but independently) about their Scriptures, the more credible such an interpretation of the Old Testament becomes, and the more Christian faith is strengthened. Of course, we await the scholarly debate to determine if this tablet in fact says what is being claimed of it. I'm reminded of the claim in the early 1990s about a newly translated Dead Sea Scroll fragment that supposedly talked about a "slain Messiah" when it turned out to be about the Messiah slaying his enemies instead!Dr Craig Blomberg
I never asked what the bible said about how old the earth is. I asked YOU. So you didn't answer my question, I just want to know. So are you going to answer?
ElectronicMagic
electronic magic, he doesn't have to answer because your question is a red herring.
[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]question for electronicmagic, surely you accept that Jesus existed? ElectronicMagic
No, I don't. There isn't evidence for or against the existence of Jesus.
so how about the Gospels or Paul's letters or the references by Josephus?
The bible is the only book from that time period that ever mentions Jesus, that isn't evidence, he's a character in a work of ficition. The bible also talks about Jonah living in the belly of a whale for 300 years, a great flood that covered the world for 40 days and 40 nights, while the only humans that survived lived on a boat with two of each animal gathered from across the world, Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water and bring the dead back to life, is that true? No, not at all.
no, no and NO. the bible is not ONE book, but 66 different books. the New Testament is 27 different books by 9 different authors (or 14 depending on how many you consider to be pseudepigrapha). secondly, the Gospels are ancient biographies of Jesus, 2 of these were written by eye-witnesses, and the other 2 used eye-witnesses as their sources. secondly, the new testament, the Gospels, the epistles have NOTHING to do with Genesis 1-10. third, there is a wide array of evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead.
i can go on and on. Also the plane fact that god has never been proven to exist its enoughh. snoopeymaster
no such thing as "proof" outside of mathematics.
A book which is 2000 years old, original copy doesnt even exist, changed hundreds of times, original language copy doesnt even exist, cannot be trusted.snoopeymaster
for that, we have textual criticism. BTW, it has not been changed "hundreds" of times, and if we are to throw it out simply because we do not have the autographs is, well naive to put it lightly. we do not have the original manuscripts for ANYTHING from antiquity, and hence we must throw out ALL specific events of ancient history.
Anyone who trust such a book is a fool in my opinionsnoopeymaster
anyone who would lob such accusations is a fool in my evidently vastly more informed opinion.
Log in to comment