Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why not just treat the New Testament the way critial scholars treat it, not as a religious text, but a collection of documents from the 1st century from which historical facts can be gathered? There is a difference between determining the historical credibility of scripture and analyzing what the written word means. Men can write anything in stories and stories have meaning, but it does not mean the stories are credibl
Your prejudice is showing like a woman's slip under her dress.
Bring the bar down. Don't come to the table and accuse us coming empty handed when you have determined beforehand that we can't bring anything to the table to begin with.
Treat these documents as any other piece of historical data.
There is a difference between assigning meaning to stories written by men and determining whether those stories have historical credibility. All stories have meaning, not all stories are historically credible.Why not just treat the New Testament the way critial scholars treat it, not as a religious text, but a collection of documents from the 1st century from which historical facts can be gathered?
Your prejudice is showing like a woman's slip under her dress.
Bring the bar down. Don't come to the table and accuse us coming empty handed when you have determined beforehand that we can't bring anything to the table to begin with.
Treat these documents as any other piece of historical data.
I said I treat it like any other text making exceptional claims.Why not just treat the New Testament the way critial scholars treat it, not as a religious text, but a collection of documents from the 1st century from which historical facts can be gathered?
Your prejudice is showing like a woman's slip under her dress.
Bring the bar down. Don't come to the table and accuse us coming empty handed when you have determined beforehand that we can't bring anything to the table to begin with.
Treat these documents as any other piece of historical data.
The point is, the biblical authors are not contemporaries and the secular historians who mention Jesus or Christians are not either. They are not reliable accounts.
You mention 2 people here, 1 of them did mention Jesus, and the other, Philo, did not mention him, that's an argument from silence. Clearly Jews rejected Jesus, and then there were Jews that excepted Jesus (who got labeled 'Christians'). I don't follow why you're asserting that Philo would consider Jesus to be the real Messiah?? Some of your own wording is part of the reason that Jesus being mentioned would actually be of lower probability, that would actually increase the likelihood of Philo remaining silent about Jesus...In the case of Philo specifically, he wrote about numerous failed Jewish messiahs. It's hard to believe he would have neglected entirely to write about the real one. Josephus also documents plenty of failed messiahs and regional religious leaders.
Yes exactly, the higher up an agitator was on the rebellion rung the more likely he would be written about. And HIGHEST among that priority were zealots! Jesus was the polar opposite, a pacifist. And Jesus even had Peter and John the Baptist thrown for a loop...let alone Philo. Peter was totally lost about the logic that Jesus must be arrested and killed. John the Baptist was in prison waiting for Hell to break loose and the liberation of the Jews to take place, instead he sits in prison and therefore doubt grows inside him...and he sends messengers asking if Jesus was in fact the Messiah or should he expect another?You also paint an entirely inaccurate picture of Judaea, in fact it was an area of vital strategic importance as it was the link between Egypt and Asia Minor. Given that it was an area constantly teeming with rebellion it also generated a lot of writings. We have a very good idea of that area at that time period.
I don't care if I read the works of historians, apologists, atheists, or a McDonald's cashier, as long as it's accurate. I'm more than happy to except correction. As far as I was aware I covered the material from that time, feel free to add more stuff that I missed. What my main objective was however was to paint a picture of the flavor of material that has survived from that time, and to point out that Jesus being mentioned by non-Christian sources shouldn't even be expected, until later on after the faith started causing more issues that should be mentioned.Your assertions that almost nothing survives from that time period is simply incorrect as well, in fact the first century is one of the best documented periods of ancient history...I suggest you read the work of historians as opposed to apologists who wish to paint an incorrect picture to bolster their own worldviews.
I said I treat it like any other text making exceptional claims.
So your assumptions about my prejudices and determinations are unwarranted.
We have no writings from Matthew, Peter, James and John. We have writings attributed to some, however all of the new testament writings were anonymously written and the names added later apart from the genuine Pauline epistles. That being said it's commonly accepted that even some of Paul's letters weren't written by Paul.
Who are the eyewitnesses he talked to that witnessed the crucifixion and saw Jesus alive again?
As for contemporary works, it's not an absolute requirement assuming we have solid evidence from other means. Alexander the Great is a commonly cited example of that, we have very little from his own time period, however world history could not have progressed as it did if Alexander didn't conquer the territory that he did when he did it. We also have archaeological evidence of battlefields and a bunch of cities named Alexandria. We do have later historians quoting the works of contemporaries to Alexander as well.
In the case of Jesus however, we have absolutely no sign of anything happening during the time he was said to be alive, despite the presence of a number of prominent Roman Historians in or familiar with that part of the world. We have a handful of anonymous writings written decades after the fact, and which are not very credible plus Paul's letters. Secular history doesn't have very much to say about Christians apart from a handful of footnotes for centuries after the time of Jesus. Likewise whether Jesus lived and died as told in the gospels is irrelevant to how Christianity spread and affected the world. All you need is a belief, not fact. Basically, we have very little evidence to go on to support the story of Jesus or the foundations of Christianity itself.
Exceptional claims, as in, claims that cannot be true. That's what you mean when you say "exceptional claims".
Essentially you are asking us to present evidence for something that you don't even think can be true. At this juncture, I would ask why you would do this?
Ok now I'm curious to here his specifics, I just bought it lolI'm aware of the synoptic problem. Are you aware of James Dunn's answer to it?
No, that´s not what I mean. Don´t lie about me. Thank you.Exceptional claims, as in, claims that cannot be true. That's what you mean when you say "exceptional claims".
It´s more like you came here claiming to have evidence.Essentially you are asking us to present evidence
Inaccurate - see above.for something that you don't even think can be true.
No, that´s not what I mean. Don´t lie about me. Thank you.
It´s more like you came here claiming to have evidence.
Inaccurate - see above.
And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.Not what he said.
He said exceptional claims, require evidence.
And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.
These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.
Critical scholars who are not Christians, admit these three basic points can be established.
Do you agree with them, that these three basic facts can be established?
We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.
These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.
Sure it´s possible. It´s an exceptional claim, though.Do you think it is possible that Jesus rose bodily from the dead as the scripture declares?
Keep telling yourself that. Any NT scholar/historian that applies the historical method as it was intended, is not going to declare the resurrection as established historical fact. Why? Because real historians readily admit (even the christian ones), that miracles are not able to be confirmed as fact and must be taken on faith. If you want to believe it, cool, but it is not historical fact.And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.
These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.
Critical scholars who are not Christians, admit these three basic points can be established.
Do you agree with them, that these three basic facts can be established?
Keep telling yourself that. Any NT scholar/historian that applies the historical method as it was intended, is not going to declare the resurrection as established historical fact. Why? Because real historians readily admit (even the christian ones), that miracles are not able to be confirmed as fact and must be taken on faith. If you want to believe it, cool, but it is not historical fact.
No need. The resurrection is not considered a historical fact by professional historians, who determine the credibility of history for a living.
If you want to believe it on faith, knock yourself out.
Critical scholars are not christians? Hilarious.And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.
These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.
Critical scholars who are not Christians, admit these three basic points can be established.
Do you agree with them, that these three basic facts can be established?
I see you're not serious. When you are we can discuss this further.Critical scholars are not christians? Hilarious.
Sure it´s possible. It´s an exceptional claim, though.
Will you now apologize for lieing about me?
...and these aren´t the exceptional claims that I am talking about. You know that quite well, since at the same time you are talking to me about the resurrection (which, indeed, would be an exceptional event).These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?