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.
No evidence of a literal exodus, for starters.You made a sweeping claim .
Can you demontrate why hisory and archeology do not suppprt the Bible? I believe you are not saying taht hostorians and archeloists made false claims. But if you are, you imply that many of them are unreliable? what make your words better than theirs?
I click of couple of the 5 links you provided, and they led me to previous postings by yourself, you were answering questions from others, giving them your opinion and interpretations of things. There was NOTHING credible from you to try to provide explanation on how life begin.
So as I said, there is still no credible explanation about how life begins. No proof that eons of time ago, a tiny amoeba or cell or whatever started to breathe and very gradually transform to two, then 20, then the millions of diversities we see around us.
The reason I took almost 3 weeks to click on the links is I have other priorities and more importantly, I didn’t expect you to have good theories to offer – because this area is still very much at a work-in-progress stage among scientist and microbiologists, nothing conclusive, far from it.
@Kylie, this statement by Josephus is more interesting than your “proofs of life” . Josephus was a secular historian of the Roman empire, not a Christian historian, he wrote “There was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why wouldn’t you agree that his statement us credible? Or you believe it is credible?
The Josephus statement is credible as a confirmation that somebody named Jesus existed. As a credible source for confirmation of miracles? Not so much.Do you recognize that Jesus lived and existed?
Josephus not only said Jesus was there, he said “there was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why would he say that Jesus did miracles? If Jesus didn’t, would Josephus would not write that he did miracles.
@Kylie, this statement by Josephus is more interesting than your “proofs of life” . Josephus was a secular historian of the Roman empire, not a Christian historian, he wrote “There was a man Jesus who did many miracles and many people followed him.” Why wouldn’t you agree that his statement us credible? Or you believe it is credible?
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia
Josephus - RationalWiki
So, no, I do not think Josephus is a credible source when it comes to the existence of Jesus.
And all of this proves that the world was created on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM exactly how? Yes, I know that is hyperbolic but it points to the problem, which is that you are going about the thing backwards. The creationist biblical argument is about the nature of the biblical texts, not about the events they purport to describe.From your link:
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[13] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation.[14][98][1][15][18] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[97] However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[99]
It sounds as though scholars generally agree that Josephus' works, collectively, support the existence of Jesus. And that, of at least the above referenced work, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is accepted "almost universally" as credible.
And all of this proves that the world was created on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM exactly how? Yes, I know that is hyperbolic but it points to the problem, which is that you are going about the thing backwards. The creationist biblical argument is about the nature of the biblical texts, not about the events they purport to describe.
The most you can hope for is that historical and archaeological evidence will confirm that the events themselves are in some sense true. But no amount of historical or archaeological evidence will prove that the texts themselves are the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of divine plenary verbal inspiration, and without that there can be no creationism.
And I agree with you with respect to Christianity generally (and my own faith in particular) but it doesn't do a thing for biblical creationism.I believe that scripture, and historical works, while obviously not sufficient in demonstrating that Jesus was God, do support the claim that Jesus said and did things, as scripture describes.
And I'm not talking about breaking loaves to 5000 people. I'm talking about support for Jesus' non miracle works. And of course Jesus' teachings, which, in my opinion, are more significant to the religion of Christianity, than the suggestions of miracles themselves.
From your link:
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[13] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation.[14][98][1][15][18] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[97] However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in The Jewish War differ from it.[99]
It sounds as though scholars generally agree that Josephus' works, collectively, support the existence of Jesus. And that, of at least the above referenced work, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is accepted "almost universally" as credible. I'd otherwise agree that while Josephus is considered a credible source with respect to the existence of Christ by most scholars (as other sources are, such as Tacitus' Annals), it isn't specific to whether or not he performed miracles.
At best this shows that James was considered to be the brother of Jesus. Doesn't mean that Jesus existed. It's just repeating a popular belief about James.
That's too much of dichotomy.Do you feel as though all historic records of Jesus, are also non-credible, so long as they were not first hand accounts? Such as in the case of Tacitus as well?
That's too much of dichotomy.
Do you feel as though all historic records of Jesus, are also non-credible, so long as they were not first hand accounts? Such as in the case of Tacitus as well?
I suppose you would consider books of the Bible, also as non-credible sources for Jesus' existence as well? Perhaps the accounts of Jesus therein are...forged?
First of all, Josephus lived and wrote AFTER the events he described. So what he got was not first hand information - he didn't see it for himself. He was just repeating the words of others.
Secondly, the passage you speak of is considered to be a partial, if not complete, forgery, added in after the fact by Christian historians.
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia
Josephus - RationalWiki
So, no, I do not think Josephus is a credible source when it comes to the existence of Jesus.
No evidence of a literal exodus, for starters.
At best this shows that James was considered to be the brother of Jesus. Doesn't mean that Jesus existed. It's just repeating a popular belief about James.
I would have gone for global flood first.
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?