Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2017, 11:57 AM
 
42 posts, read 26,610 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
Citing the Bible does not mean you understand it.

Why do you not consider the 4 gospels as historical evidence for Jesus? Because you are biased and don't want to. Jesus is also mentioned by at least 2 secular historians. That takes Jesus out of the myth category and exposes your motive.

Thee are more mss about Jesus than their is about Plato, Is Plato a myth? Why do you believe less information than you do more information? Same reason, you are biased.

You need to change your tag line to "verify your source."
Let me take this one point at a time.

First off I understand citing something does not mean you understand it or are citing it correctly but it is a way of explaining your reasoning and makes it a lot easier for others to point out how and why you are incorrect. Again my well cited documentary is proof I did research this does not mean I am correct but it does mean I DID RESEARCH, it literally took me months to put together.

Next up you claim that I claim the 4 gospels are historical evidence of Jesus, this is a straw man because I never claimed that in fact I mentioned a few times in this thread that I am looking at the BIBLICAL JESUS as in Jesus the character in the bible not the historical figure.

You claim there are 2 historians that were secular and mentioned him... Who? The only one I know of is Josephus who is regarded by all modern academia as a corrupt roman mouth piece and his account is not valid. Who is the other one? I would love to see a shred of historical evidence of Jesus and his existence I know of none.

"Thee are more mss about Jesus than their is about Plato, Is Plato a myth" I do not understand what you are asking... to answer the end of that indecipherable sentence however I do not believe Plato to be a myth because I read a book he authored himself that makes it pretty easy to say he was a real person considering he left many books on his own thoughts. Jesus wrote nothing, there are 0 historical evidence for him even existing. The Gospels were all written 150+ years after the fact yet claim to be first hand accounts. See how things are not adding up friend?

Lastly yes I am biased just like literally every single human that has ever lived or will ever live. That is why I cite my sources and explain my thoughts so that if my bias clouded my judgement someone could explain how and why I am wrong and I can attempt to correct my bias.

 
Old 07-11-2017, 12:15 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
33,059 posts, read 26,267,471 times
Reputation: 16201
Quote:
Originally Posted by trustyoursources View Post
I did my research I cite the bible through out the documentary.

You realize there is literally no evidence for a historical Jesus he literally only exists in the Iron Age mythology written between 150 and 350ad hundreds of years after his supposed life.
If you will take the time to do proper research you will find that the New Testament documents were written long before the A.D. 150-350 dates you ascribe to them. In fact all 27 New Testament documents were written before the end of the first century with many of them having been written well before the end of the first century.

One evidence for this is the fact that the Muratorian Fragment lists 21 of the 27 New Testament documents. The Muratorian Fragment or Canon is an early list of those documents. The Muratorian Fragment itself is dated to A.D. c.175.

The author of the Muratorian Fragment not only lists those 21 New Testament books but states that they were written during the time of the apostles which was during the 1st century A.D. In contrast, he also mentions the 'Shepherd of Hermas' which was written by Hermas and which he says cannot be placed among the apostles because it was written ''most recently in our times when his brother bishop Pious was occupying the chair in the church at Rome.'' The exact dates in which Pius I of Rome was bishop in the church at Rome can't be precisely fixed, but it was sometime during the middle part of the 2nd century. Pius is mentioned by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3.3 in which he lists the order of succession of the bishopric - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 3 (Roberts-Donaldson translation).

The point here is that the author of the Muratorian Fragment which again is dated to around A.D. 175 could not mention those 21 New Testament books if they hadn't been written yet, and that he indicates that those documents were written ''before our time'', with ''our time'' being the latter part of the 2nd century A.D.. Here is a link to the Muratorian Fragment. - The Muratorian Fragment

Since the apostle Paul was executed probably around A.D. 67-68 during the Neronian persecutions which began in A.D. 64, his writings obviously were earlier than the time of his death.

A good case can be made that the book of Acts was written by the early 60's. The reason being that the death of James the brother of John is mentioned in Acts 12:2, but the deaths of Peter and Paul are not mentioned, and neither is the Neronian persecution of the church which began in A.D. 64. Nor is the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 mentioned in the book of Acts. Since Luke felt it important to mention the death of James, but did not mention the deaths of Peter and Paul, nor did he make any mention of the Neronian persecutions or of the destruction of the temple, the most reasonable explanation is that they had not yet occurred which means that Acts was written before those events. While the lack of mention of those events is not proof positive that Acts was written by the early 60's, it is a reasonable conclusion.

And if Acts was written by the early 60's then the Gospel of Luke was also written by that time since Luke wrote his Gospel account before he wrote Acts.

Your claim which you made in post #61 that the Gospels were all written 150+ years after the fact is simply not true and you have no evidence, nor are you able to produce any legitimate evidence that your claim is true.

Last edited by Michael Way; 07-11-2017 at 12:25 PM..
 
Old 07-11-2017, 12:28 PM
 
6,518 posts, read 2,710,711 times
Reputation: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by trustyoursources View Post
You realize there is literally no evidence for a historical Jesus he literally only exists in the Iron Age mythology written between 150 and 350ad hundreds of years after his supposed life.
you didn't even read my link before commenting or you would have found all the proof you needed . so now just stop lying about history!
 
Old 07-11-2017, 12:38 PM
 
9,588 posts, read 5,019,582 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
If you will take the time to do proper research you will find that the New Testament documents were written long before the A.D. 150-350 dates you ascribe to them. In fact all 27 New Testament documents were written before the end of the first century with many of them having been written well before the end of the first century.

One evidence for this is the fact that the Muratorian Fragment lists 21 of the 27 New Testament documents. The Muratorian Fragment or Canon is an early list of those documents. The Muratorian Fragment itself is dated to A.D. c.175.

The author of the Muratorian Fragment not only lists those 21 New Testament books but states that they were written during the time of the apostles which was during the 1st century A.D. In contrast, he also mentions the 'Shepherd of Hermas' which was written by Hermas and which he says cannot be placed among the apostles because it was written ''most recently in our times when his brother bishop Pious was occupying the chair in the church at Rome.'' The exact dates in which Pius I of Rome was bishop in the church at Rome can't be precisely fixed, but it was sometime during the middle part of the 2nd century. Pius is mentioned by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3.3 in which he lists the order of succession of the bishopric - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 3 (Roberts-Donaldson translation).

The point here is that the author of the Muratorian Fragment which again is dated to around A.D. 175 could not mention those 21 New Testament books if they hadn't been written yet, and that he indicates that those documents were written ''before our time'', with ''our time'' being the latter part of the 2nd century A.D.. Here is a link to the Muratorian Fragment. - The Muratorian Fragment

Since the apostle Paul was executed probably around A.D. 67-68 during the Neronian persecutions which began in A.D. 64, his writings obviously were earlier than the time of his death.

A good case can be made that the book of Acts was written by the early 60's. The reason being that the death of James the brother of John is mentioned in Acts 12:2, but the deaths of Peter and Paul are not mentioned, and neither is the Neronian persecution of the church which began in A.D. 64. Nor is the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 mentioned in the book of Acts. Since Luke felt it important to mention the death of James, but did not mention the deaths of Peter and Paul, nor did he make any mention of the Neronian persecutions or of the destruction of the temple, the most reasonable explanation is that they had not yet occurred which means that Acts was written before those events. While the lack of mention of those events is not proof positive that Acts was written by the early 60's, it is a reasonable conclusion.

And if Acts was written by the early 60's then the Gospel of Luke was also written by that time since Luke wrote his Gospel account before he wrote Acts.

Your claim which you made in post #61 that the Gospels were all written 150+ years after the fact is simply not true and you have no evidence, nor are you able to produce any legitimate evidence that your claim is true.

Too soon, ect.
 
Old 07-12-2017, 05:43 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,985,995 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by trustyoursources View Post
Let me take this one point at a time.

First off I understand citing something does not mean you understand it or are citing it correctly but it is a way of explaining your reasoning and makes it a lot easier for others to point out how and why you are incorrect. Again my well cited documentary is proof I did research this does not mean I am correct but it does mean I DID RESEARCH, it literally took me months to put together.
Okay.

Quote:
Next up you claim that I claim the 4 gospels are historical evidence of Jesus, this is a straw man because I never claimed that in fact I mentioned a few times in this thread that I am looking at the BIBLICAL JESUS as in Jesus the character in the bible not the historical figure.
Sometimes my typing skills have me say the wrong thing. If I said you claimed the 4 gospels are historical evidence that Jesus existed, it was in error. You said just the opposite.

Quote:
You claim there are 2 historians that were secular and mentioned him... Who? The only one I know of is Josephus who is regarded by all modern academia as a corrupt roman mouth piece and his account is not valid. Who is the other one? I would love to see a shred of historical evidence of Jesus and his existence I know of none.
The other one was Taticus. That spelling may be wrong

Quote:
"Thee are more mss about Jesus than their is about Plato, Is Plato a myth" I do not understand what you are asking... to answer the end of that indecipherable sentence however I do not believe Plato to be a myth because I read a book he authored himself that makes it pretty easy to say he was a real person considering he left many books on his own thoughts. Jesus wrote nothing, there are 0 historical evidence for him even existing. The Gospels were all written 150+ years after the fact yet claim to be first hand accounts. See how things are not adding up friend?
First you seem to reject the gospels as valid historical evidence. Unless you can find some legitimate reason to do that, that is not a valid reason. Second it is impossible to accurately date the gospels. Conservative scholars date all but John between 50-60 AD, John about 80-90 AD. Third when something is written doe snot affect it s accuracy. Finally, what was written was inspired by God, so who and when is irrelevant.

Quote:
Lastly yes I am biased just like literally every single human that has ever lived or will ever live. That is why I cite my sources and explain my thoughts so that if my bias clouded my judgement someone could explain how and why I am wrong and I can attempt to correct my bias.
I don't like to paint everyone with the same brush, but it seems like most who do what you have done start with a preconceived idea and that bias makes them lean in only one direction to reinforce their preconceived idea.

It seems to me that you started out with the idea the gospels are not valid historical records and set out to prove it. That seems to be what you had in mind by not looking for the historical Jesus.
 
Old 07-12-2017, 11:34 AM
 
42 posts, read 26,610 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
If you will take the time to do proper research you will find that the New Testament documents were written long before the A.D. 150-350 dates you ascribe to them. In fact all 27 New Testament documents were written before the end of the first century with many of them having been written well before the end of the first century.

One evidence for this is the fact that the Muratorian Fragment lists 21 of the 27 New Testament documents. The Muratorian Fragment or Canon is an early list of those documents. The Muratorian Fragment itself is dated to A.D. c.175.

The author of the Muratorian Fragment not only lists those 21 New Testament books but states that they were written during the time of the apostles which was during the 1st century A.D. In contrast, he also mentions the 'Shepherd of Hermas' which was written by Hermas and which he says cannot be placed among the apostles because it was written ''most recently in our times when his brother bishop Pious was occupying the chair in the church at Rome.'' The exact dates in which Pius I of Rome was bishop in the church at Rome can't be precisely fixed, but it was sometime during the middle part of the 2nd century. Pius is mentioned by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3.3 in which he lists the order of succession of the bishopric - Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 3 (Roberts-Donaldson translation).

The point here is that the author of the Muratorian Fragment which again is dated to around A.D. 175 could not mention those 21 New Testament books if they hadn't been written yet, and that he indicates that those documents were written ''before our time'', with ''our time'' being the latter part of the 2nd century A.D.. Here is a link to the Muratorian Fragment. - The Muratorian Fragment

Since the apostle Paul was executed probably around A.D. 67-68 during the Neronian persecutions which began in A.D. 64, his writings obviously were earlier than the time of his death.

A good case can be made that the book of Acts was written by the early 60's. The reason being that the death of James the brother of John is mentioned in Acts 12:2, but the deaths of Peter and Paul are not mentioned, and neither is the Neronian persecution of the church which began in A.D. 64. Nor is the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 mentioned in the book of Acts. Since Luke felt it important to mention the death of James, but did not mention the deaths of Peter and Paul, nor did he make any mention of the Neronian persecutions or of the destruction of the temple, the most reasonable explanation is that they had not yet occurred which means that Acts was written before those events. While the lack of mention of those events is not proof positive that Acts was written by the early 60's, it is a reasonable conclusion.

And if Acts was written by the early 60's then the Gospel of Luke was also written by that time since Luke wrote his Gospel account before he wrote Acts.

Your claim which you made in post #61 that the Gospels were all written 150+ years after the fact is simply not true and you have no evidence, nor are you able to produce any legitimate evidence that your claim is true.
I have taken a look around and found a few different time lines. The ones that seemed lest biased said 65 - 95AD (The rest give similar date ranges) I can see now I was wrong, thanks for pointing it out.
 
Old 07-12-2017, 11:50 AM
 
42 posts, read 26,610 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
Okay.



Sometimes my typing skills have me say the wrong thing. If I said you claimed the 4 gospels are historical evidence that Jesus existed, it was in error. You said just the opposite.



The other one was Taticus. That spelling may be wrong



First you seem to reject the gospels as valid historical evidence. Unless you can find some legitimate reason to do that, that is not a valid reason. Second it is impossible to accurately date the gospels. Conservative scholars date all but John between 50-60 AD, John about 80-90 AD. Third when something is written doe snot affect it s accuracy. Finally, what was written was inspired by God, so who and when is irrelevant.



I don't like to paint everyone with the same brush, but it seems like most who do what you have done start with a preconceived idea and that bias makes them lean in only one direction to reinforce their preconceived idea.

It seems to me that you started out with the idea the gospels are not valid historical records and set out to prove it. That seems to be what you had in mind by not looking for the historical Jesus.
I can see now I was wrong on the dates and the gospels were more likely written 65-95AD although there is no true consensus on exactly when but regardless I was still way off base so I am glad to correct this in my understanding.

However I this post and my documentary are on the biblical Jesus the character and if Jesus was a historical figure and these accounts of him are written by his disciples than my documentary applies just as much to the historical figure because after if we consider for a second that events like Mary getting pregnant before her wedding with Joseph we can easily assume some one else had sex with her (Just like you would assume if some random chick you were engaged to but have not had sex with came to you all pregnant and told you the baby was from god.) This is just one example of assumptions we can easily make also my 3 assumptions were in the original post the following...

1 - Jesus is not divine and has no special powers. (ex. I've never seen a dude walk on water why would I believe a testimony that says someone saw someone do it somewhere.)

2 - No one else has special powers everyone is a human limited by the knowledge and culture of Iron Age Middle East.

3 - Jesus is corruptible just like every other person.

In literature these assumptions might be wrong to make because anything is possible in literature. However if we take the gospels as accounts of reality they would necessarily apply (They are the facts of our reality). Thus making my case even stronger.
 
Old 07-12-2017, 12:22 PM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,985,995 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by trustyoursources View Post
I can see now I was wrong on the dates and the gospels were more likely written 65-95AD although there is no true consensus on exactly when but regardless I was still way off base so I am glad to correct this in my understanding.

Good, it takes a goo man/woman to admit they were wrong.

However I this post and my documentary are on the biblical Jesus the character and if Jesus was a historical figure and these accounts of him are written by his disciples than my documentary applies just as much to the historical figure because after if we consider for a second that events like Mary getting pregnant before her wedding with Joseph we can easily assume some one else had sex with her (Just like you would assume if some random chick you were engaged to but have not had sex with came to you all pregnant and told you the baby was from god.) This is just one example of assumptions we can easily make also my 3 assumptions were in the original post the following...

1 - Jesus is not divine and has no special powers. (ex. I've never seen a dude walk on water why would I believe a testimony that says someone saw someone do it somewhere.)
If He didn't have special power, how could He walk on water, change water into wine, etc?

Quote:
2 - No one else has special powers everyone is a human limited by the knowledge and culture of Iron Age Middle East.
To make that assumptin, you have to start with the idea that God does not exist. Something for which you have no eviddnce.

Quote:
Jesus is corruptible just like every other person.
Another statement for which you have no evidence. The Bible says He was without sin. Why should anyone believe you?

Quote:
In literature these assumptions might be wrong to make because anything is possible in literature. However if we take the gospels as accounts of reality they would necessarily apply (They are the facts of our reality). Thus making my case even stronger.
There are 2 basic types of literature---Fiction and nonfiction. Your assumptions are based on somethng for which you have no evidence, putting them in the fiction category, Not making your case stronge, but actually destroying it.
 
Old 07-12-2017, 01:02 PM
 
42 posts, read 26,610 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
If He didn't have special power, how could He walk on water, change water into wine, etc?



To make that assumptin, you have to start with the idea that God does not exist. Something for which you have no eviddnce.



Another statement for which you have no evidence. The Bible says He was without sin. Why should anyone believe you?



There are 2 basic types of literature---Fiction and nonfiction. Your assumptions are based on somethng for which you have no evidence, putting them in the fiction category, Not making your case stronge, but actually destroying it.

If He didn't have special power, how could He walk on water, change water into wine, etc?


- The same way all other magicians do "magic" without special powers but combined with the ignorance of the Iron Age. The real question is how do you think he did it and how did you arrive at your conclusion? Someone saw someone do something completely physically impossible is enough to convince you it was done? I normally assume all claims of disobeying the laws of physics as lies until proven otherwise. For example how convinced would you be if I told you I can swim in gas aka fly?


- I do not need to make the assumption god doesn't exist to assume human beings cant change the laws of physics Ive seen millions of people during my life and cameras have been around for hundreds of years no one ever changed the laws of physics before thus until there is solid evidence that it can even by done we can assume 2000 year old Iron Age rumors are lies. Same goes for healing based on touching people (That still happens to this day and modern day magicians are tv evangelist guess what its all fraud. Why would you assume back then it wasn't based on what?)

- The bible says he was without sin thus he wasn't? You mean to say the bible is true cause it says its true? Lol great argument. I can say I am without sin would you believe me, I can even write it down and call it scripture. Have you ever seen a human being that was incorruptible ever in your life? Humans are by nature why would you assume there was ever an exception to the rule what evidence is there for this person with completely inhuman attributes, Iron Age rumors?

Why should anyone believe you is the real question when you basically just said the bible is true cause it says it true?
 
Old 07-12-2017, 04:45 PM
 
Location: US
32,530 posts, read 21,941,988 times
Reputation: 2226
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint View Post
and healer, and magician, and stay unmarried but had a prostitute for a pal..while taking 12 fishermen away from their families and jobs to follow him.... the list goes on..
12 fishermen???...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top