Sober minded

[Smidlee]

That would apply to history as well. Even we get our history mixed up, for example I remember the "flat earth" myth was mention in my history class.

 

[niye]

The other thing to consider about some of the stories in the bible is that it is not a history lesson. These are the personal accounts of those who either knew Jesus, spoke to those who knew Jesus or those who knew about the events. The events were orally passed on as part of the tradition for learning so someone has decided to write them down. So there will be human error with some details. Each person will see the events through their own perspective. But the basic story is what matters and there is consistency with this.

Someone may have thought a particular detail was the case when they were writing down the story and it wasn't exactly the case. But this doesn't mean that the whole thing is false, it just means they are human and can get things wrong. When they were doing the Nuremberg trials for WW2 people got details wrong. But it didn't change the fact that Hitler and his cronies killed millions in the concentration camps. Getting something wrong about how many were sent to the Gas chambers even in a particular year is not the point. The point is that they were sent to the gas chambers. The other to consider is that each person may consider something in a different way. What one person describes will be described in a different way to the next. So the stories are not going to be exactly the same.

I agree, but this isn't just garden-variety history. This is supposed to be Holy Spirit-inspired. Historically, most Christians tied damnation and salvation to lack of belief/belief in it.

Re concentration camps: Evidence that these existed is not based solely on second-hand accounts of people 60-70 years after the fact. There are photographs, records, the camps themselves. When the trials took place, there would have been plenty of eyewitnesses, victims to give evidence. There's nothing like that for the crucifixion.

We're talking about GOD, the omniscient, the omnipotent, capable of providing proof. He's omnibenevolent, wants us all saved. So why not give us a clear account that can't be dismantled, then judge us by our refusal to believe or not?

 

[bhsmte]

I've told you several times now that the gospel writers used assistants or understudies to produce the written material.

The UB reveals who wrote which gospels, when AND that they were edited later with some material taken out and other things added.

Yes, you have said that. Problem is, you have zero credible evidence to support your claim.

You can believe that on faith though.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is speculation as to which census it was. There was more than one census taken around the time of the birth of Jesus. There was one in 8BC, 2BC and 6AD. So the census that Josephus mentions maybe a different census to the one Luke mentions.

Wrong time issues, the time issues are in the people who were supposedly involved with the census, not just the act of taking the census itself.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is speculation as to which census it was. There was more than one census taken around the time of the birth of Jesus. There was one in 8BC, 2BC and 6AD. So the census that Josephus mentions maybe a different census to the one Luke mentions.

Luke can't possibly be talking about the censuses in 8BC and 2BC. Luke mentions it was an "empire-wide" census, and the local governor was Quirinius.

Quirinius was appointed legate of Syria and part of his duty was to take a census of the newly formed province of Iudea for taxation purposes.

In short, prior to 6AD, Judea was not a Roman Province, it was simply considered occupied territory. Quirinius was governor of Crete and Cyrene during the 8BC and 2BC censuses, and furthermore there was never an "empire wide" census taken in the entire history of the Roman Empire. Censuses were always done province to province, so Luke clearly got that wrong as well.

Luke's dates just don't add up, there are some unavoidable major contradictions and errors in his book.

 

[Smidlee]

Critics have dogmatically made claimed in the past that the Bible was wrong only to be revealed later the scripture were right. Atheist always assume the mistake was made in scripture instead of our account of history. I would say people in the 1st and 2nd century would know more about their own history than someone thousands years later.

 

[bhsmte]

Critics have dogmatically made claimed in the past that the Bible was wrong only to be revealed later the scripture were right. Atheist always assume the mistake was made in scripture instead of our account of history. I would say people in the 1st and 2nd century would know more about their own history than someone thousands years later.

These contradictions are meaningless because you say so?

 

[Smidlee]

These contradictions are meaningless because you say so?

Isn't it true we have much older manuscripts of the NT than we do of Josephus' works yet atheist accepted it as the gospel truth?

 

[Colter]

The 35 most important acts of Augustus according to him:

8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations​

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Critics have dogmatically made claimed in the past that the Bible was wrong only to be revealed later the scripture were right. Atheist always assume the mistake was made in scripture instead of our account of history. I would say people in the 1st and 2nd century would know more about their own history than someone thousands years later.

Except we have multiple historical sources (including the censuses themselves and other Roman records / government practices) that conflict with Luke's account, and Luke has absolutely nothing to back up his account.

Luke's account simply does not line up with historical data, or roman legislative practices. His account is not correct.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Isn't it true we have much older manuscripts of the NT than we do of Josephus' works yet atheist accepted it as the gospel truth?

No, that's not correct.

 

[Smidlee]

Except we have multiple historical sources (including the censuses themselves and other Roman records / government practices) that conflict with Luke's account, and Luke has absolutely nothing to back up his account.

Luke's account simply does not line up with historical data, or roman legislative practices. His account is not correct.

We have a lot more source of scriptures than any other historical source and much closer to the original dates as well.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We have a lot more source of scriptures than any other historical source and much closer to the original dates as well.

Any evidence to back your claim? Because what you're saying simply doesn't jive with reality.

 

[Smidlee]

Any evidence to back your claim? Because what you're saying simply doesn't jive with reality.

You meant what you consider "reality". A lot of facts do get lost over long periods of time so that you have to accept even history with a certain amount of faith.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You meant what you consider "reality". A lot of facts do get lost over long periods of time so that you have to accept even history with a certain amount of faith.

No, that's not actually true.

What you have is one account which contradicts all other historical documentation from the era in question, and gets a number of claims demonstrably wrong.

We also know Luke is not a contemporary work, which makes it even more problematic as the documents that contradict Luke are all contemporary records.

No claim that has so much evidence against it is held up as credible history. He was simply wrong when it came to the census issue.


To address your original point directly, we have very little if any source material for scriptures, and none of them are considered contemporary writings to the supposed time of Jesus. We have far more credible, sourced and contemporary historical documents on a wide variety of topics, including 1st century Judea.

 

[bhsmte]

We have a lot more source of scriptures than any other historical source and much closer to the original dates as well.

Prove it.

 

[stevevw]

I agree, but this isn't just garden-variety history. This is supposed to be Holy Spirit-inspired. Historically, most Christians tied damnation and salvation to lack of belief/belief in it.

Re concentration camps: Evidence that these existed is not based solely on second-hand accounts of people 60-70 years after the fact. There are photographs, records, the camps themselves. When the trials took place, there would have been plenty of eyewitnesses, victims to give evidence. There's nothing like that for the crucifixion.

We're talking about GOD, the omniscient, the omnipotent, capable of providing proof. He's omnibenevolent, wants us all saved. So why not give us a clear account that can't be dismantled, then judge us by our refusal to believe or not?

There is no photos true but then for that time period there isn't much of that type of evidence for a lot of the history. But if you take court trials there will be witness accounts with no photos and the jury is relying on eye witness accounts. They may get the detail wrong about the time of day or the color of the car ect. Each person will recollect something differently sometimes. But the event still happened.

As for Jesus there are two different views. There is the man and there is the God which could perform the miracles. We can get some support for the man and most scholars agree that there was a man named Jesus. But the supernatural events are something different and this will take faith to believe they happened. But there can be indirect evidence such as some non biblical historical observers calling Jesus a sorcerer or a magician to deal with the stories of what was being said about His feats.

But the main support is from the bible itself. There is a lot written about the events and it is all interwoven with real people, places, events, everyday living items all supported by the archeology. Luke or whoever wrote the book of Luke and wrote one of the versions for the birth of Jesus has been verified with many things he has written about. People places and names have been found as to what is written in the book of Luke and other books of the bible. So this can be indirect support that this is not all made up many years after the event by someone who didn't know.

 

[Colter]

There is not photos true but then for that time period there isnt much of that type of evidence for a lot of the history. But if you take court trials there will be witness accounts with no photos and the jury is relying on eye witness accounts. They may get the detail wrong about the time pf day or the color of the car ect. Each person will recollect something differently sometimes. But the event still happened.

As for Jesus there are two different views. There is the man and there is the God which could perform the miracles. We can get some support for the man and most scholars agree that there was a man named Jesus. But the supernatural events are something different and this will take faith to believe they happened. But there can be indirect evidence such as some non biblical historical observers calling Jesus a sorcerer or even they said He was said to heal people.

But the main support is from the bible itself. There is a lot written about the events and it is all interwoven with real people, places, events, everyday living items all supported by the archeology. Luke or whoever wrote the book of Luke and wrote one of the versions for the birth of Jesus has been verified with many things he has written about. People places and names have been found as to what is written in the book of Luke and other books of the bible. So this can be indirect support that this is not all made up many years after the event by someone who didn't know.

Ever read about Plato? Most of what is know or assumed about him comes by way of second hand accounts. Many of the same arguments made about the existence of Jesus by Atheists could be made about Plato.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ever read about Plato? Most of what is know or assumed about him comes by way of second hand accounts. Many of the same arguments made about the existence of Jesus by Atheists could be made about Plato.

The difference is Plato's words stand on their own merit. Whether there was an actual guy named Plato is largely irrelevant to the ideas that were written in Plato's name.

Jesus on the entire hand is entirely different. If there really was no Jesus, then the entirety of Christianity falls apart.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have a lot more source of scriptures than any other historical source and much closer to the original dates as well.

Not really.