Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Kenny]

Im sorry you are intellectually dishonest. Either that or you have no comprehensive skills what so ever.

I never stated you were wrong. Do I need to post the definition of my statement so you can now understand what I had wrote?



And wrong are factually very different.

How come you stated I said something I did not?

You massage words pretty good.

Your post:

Not exactly accurate...

Yet you stated that Mark was written at 70AD - within the timeframe I mentioned. So I was accurate.

you stated:

I did not go to Princeton. It was a source.

when in reality you quoted:

Yale, Harvard and Princeton.

Which, if I remember correctly, you said you went to Yale. Why did you just mention Princeton?

Massaging.

 

[JoStories]

Where did you get graduate your fourth tier?

Excuse me but I cannot make a lot of sense of this sentence. Where did someone graduate from and what is a "fourth tier"? Is that like our under graduate....followed by masters and then PhD? It would be 3 tiers, unless one is pursuing a medical degree wherein residency applies.

 

[outhouse]

Why did you just mention Princeton?

Because I posted a source from there, facepalm.

Excuse me but I cannot make a lot of sense of this sentence. Where did someone graduate from and what is a "fourth tier"? Is that like our under graduate....followed by masters and then PhD? It would be 3 tiers, unless one is pursuing a medical degree wherein residency applies.

First-tier

• Associate degree
• Foundation degree
• Higher National Diploma

Second-tier

• Bachelor's degree
• Honours Degree
• Diplom

Third-tier

• Master's degree
• Magister degree

Fourth-tier

• Specialist degree
• Engineer's degree
• Candidate of Sciences

Fifth-tier

• Doctorate

Sixth-tier

• Higher doctorate
• Habilitation
• Tenure
• Professorial degree

 

[outhouse]

This is what you said.

IMO, to discount what was written by the believers a scant 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus, is to throw out all of archaeological discoveries as irrelevant. To say that those who lived in the second generation after the eyewitnesses died on the basis for of not knowing what happened and just creating a myth,

First who is discounting what they wrote and how so?

Only 1 of 4 gospels apply to this statement.

Who is throwing out all archaeological discoveries?

Who was an eyewitness?

Who said just creating myth?

Your statements are so full of error's, it was factually NOT accurate. I was being generous in stating "Not exactly accurate..."


Many would claim statements like this are not honest, since you cannot quote where anyone said a single thing your debating.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, first of all, I would never be here trying to convince anyone that my position is the correct one. Your path is your path and I would not want to EVER take you from that. Just so we are clear at the outset.

Thank you. It is as it should be. I don't think I have had dialogue on a forum that actually changed anyone's belief system. To be honest, the reason why I join forums is just to get a feel of how people think (or don't). It helps me talk intelligently when people who are seeking, to speak to them intelligently from a position of understanding.

As for being biased, we all are Ken. If someone were to come here and try to convince me they are not biased, I would be immediately suspect. We cannot understand or view our world in any other way than through our own lenses of understanding. Its impossible. All one can try to do is to be open to other people's views. I was very fortunate. I was raised Native American and taught that faith by my grandmother, my mother is a devout Baptist, my father was an atheist, my cousin (who had severe polio and was very disabled) not only taught me to fly his Cesna but also the way of the Quakers. My parents both encouraged me to participate in the Jewish holidays with our next door neighbors. So my curiousity about faith stems from that. I do not believe that any one faith is right or wrong. I believe they all have kernels of the truth. I do believe in God but I only use the word God because it is recognizable.

What a beautiful combination of experiences. I also believe that every religion can display kernels of truth. To be honest, I also believe they can't all be true because they contradict in other areas. But no need to bash someone else's beliefs.

I believe you are over simplifying the paradigmatic shift that occurred 2000 years ago.

Perhaps! I doubt that we should try to write a dissertation. So, yes, I try to make it simple and progress from there.

Keep in mind the times then. The end of the height of the Egyptians and all those Pharoahs, not to mention a VERY important faith in and of itself. The crashing of the Greek, Roman and Persian empires, among much more. To think it simply morphed into being in a span of 15 years is really far too simple.

Not sure I understand you correctly and please let me know where I misunderstand. Yes on the Persian and Greek empires. At the supposed time of Jesus, the Roman Empire was still going strong. In 64 AD, Nero blames the Christians for the destruction of Rome. A scant 30 years after the beginning of the faith in Jesus Christ seems to me to be a rapid progression since there was no internet or radio.

With just one person, Paul, combing much of the Roman Empire (as they have said--because of the common Greek language and the Roman roads), I think there is a possibility for the faith to disseminate with ease. How much more when there are many who go forth.

Keep in mind it was Constantine who is largely credited for the actual start of Christianity. And there is much debate even about that.

Yes, that did have a big impact. IMO, I believe it began the destruction of the real faith as shared by those who followed. I believe that at that time, people became Christians in name only and the political system began to manipulate it. (my personal opinion)

You state that Jesus' crucifixtion was proven by Lucian and Tacitus. That is also belief, IMO, as there is much debate still about whether or not Christ even died or was married and had children, which IMO, is more logical to the times. I think I will stop there for now as it is a lot to consume and talk about. Small posts are better for me.

LOL. That is the truth. By the time one finishes a short statement, it morphs into fifty subjects.

I agree that there is much debate. Certainly we are not going to come to "the right answer" but rather remain in what one believes in, each one thoroughly believing that he/she is correct.

So, yes, acknowledging that there is much debate and it certainly will continue. With "other Gospels" at odds with the four Gospels, each will build their own fire.

As I mentioned, there really isn't any one thing that is going to nail it for one side or the other. Thus, as I read the quotes from Lucian and Tacitus, it simply creates a position of "possibilities". One could surmise that there was a person who created a problem. It is a good fit for one to believe they are talking about Christ Jesus.

Bright blessings.
Jo

Thanks and likewise.

 

[Kenny]

This is what you said.



First who is discounting what they wrote and how so?

Only 1 of 4 gospels apply to this statement.

.

I don't want to go in circles so I eliminated the fluff.

Luke. There is nothing anywhere that says when it was written. However, we can assume that it was written before ACTS - thus my question about Acts-- in as much as Acts speaks to the former letter written to Theophilus. In as much as Acts does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD--many hold to that both Acts and Luke were written before 70AD -- within the timeframe I mentioned.

I am sure that you can pull up "other" theories, but there is nothing to back up that what they said is right.

Matthew. Tradition says 37AD. However, Iranaeus said it was written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. I would subscribe to that position make it around 61AD. Within the scope of what I said. Additionally, there is the Epistle of Barnabas that refers to Matthew's Gospel making it no later that 70AD - within the scope of what I said.

If you want to be technical, John would be written after 70AD.

We agree on the Gospel of Mark.

 

[outhouse]

With just one person, Paul, combing much of the Roman Empire

One person? Do you think it was just Paul alone who spread the "good news" all through the Empire?

 

[outhouse]

--many hold to that both Acts and Luke were written before 70AD

Many? you mean the vast minority whop are apologetic and hold no credibility.

Matthew. Tradition says 37AD. However, Iranaeus said it was written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. I would subscribe to that position make it around 61AD.

You would be in error once again.

If you want to be technical, John would be written after 70AD.

Yes after 70CE means it could be 140 CE too. You throwing grenades here?


The standard models MOST attribute are as follows.

Mark. The book was probably written c.AD 66–70

Luke. The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE.

Matthew. The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century

John. The gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD

 

[JoStories]

Because I posted a source from there, facepalm.



First-tier

• Associate degree
• Foundation degree
• Higher National Diploma

Second-tier

• Bachelor's degree
• Honours Degree
• Diplom

Third-tier

• Master's degree
• Magister degree

Fourth-tier

• Specialist degree
• Engineer's degree
• Candidate of Sciences

Fifth-tier

• Doctorate

Sixth-tier

• Higher doctorate
• Habilitation
• Tenure
• Professorial degree

I see mr. Outhouse. In this country, academics typically do not consider associates as a tier. And there is none of the fourth tier that you mention, to my knowledge. Of course, I could be wrong but I do thank you for explaining that to me.

 

[outhouse]

I see mr. Outhouse. In this country, academics typically do not consider associates as a tier. And there is none of the fourth tier that you mention, to my knowledge. Of course, I could be wrong but I do thank you for explaining that to me.

That was just the source I used. I think your more correct in the 3 tiers generally speaking

Again I doubt he even has the second, if we go by that standard.

He seems to avoid the topic. And rarely if ever, uses any academic sources.

 

[Kenny]

Many? you mean the vast minority whop are apologetic and hold no credibility.



You would be in error once again.



Yes after 70CE means it could be 140 CE too. You throwing grenades here?


The standard models MOST attribute are as follows.

Mark. The book was probably written c.AD 66–70

Luke. The most probable date for Luke-Acts is around 80-100 CE.

Matthew. The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century

John. The gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD

You are too funny..

NIV
NIV Study Bible:

• Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
• Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
• Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
• John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

From your famous Wikipedia.

As I said before, which you seem having a hard time to wrap your head around, there will always be some disagreement when talking about dates. There are always margins of error.

 

[Kenny]

One person? Do you think it was just Paul alone who spread the "good news" all through the Empire?

Of course not. If you read what I said, I didn't stop at one.

 

[outhouse]

You are too funny..

NIV
NIV Study Bible:

Many would claim this statement above is dishonest.

NIV Study Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the NIV Study Bible is the work of a transdenominational team of biblical scholars. All confess the authority of the Bible as God's infallible word to humanity

Sorry not credible.

 

[outhouse]

Do you understand what mythology even is?

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible


The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is the founding myth of Israel

 

[outhouse]

From your famous Wikipedia.

You did not give an accurate quote from wiki, your link states nothing you posted. Doesn't surprise me you made another mistake again.


You know you can change wiki if you think you possess more knowledge then they do.

With your masters in theology you should know that, if you were being truthful that is.

 

[outhouse]

Of course not. If you read what I said, I didn't stop at one.

So besides comprehensive issues, you have trouble writing accurately what you mean?

With just one person

Then what does "with just one person" imply? Oh mr master degree in theology

 

[JoStories]

Thank you. It is as it should be. I don't think I have had dialogue on a forum that actually changed anyone's belief system. To be honest, the reason why I join forums is just to get a feel of how people think (or don't). It helps me talk intelligently when people who are seeking, to speak to them intelligently from a position of understanding.


What a beautiful combination of experiences. I also believe that every religion can display kernels of truth. To be honest, I also believe they can't all be true because they contradict in other areas. But no need to bash someone else's beliefs.

Perhaps! I doubt that we should try to write a dissertation. So, yes, I try to make it simple and progress from there.

I am actually working on a dissertation on that very topic! It is about the generalities in the concept of God that premeate most if not all faiths and how there are so many similarities. Its not a difficult a topic as you think.


Not sure I understand you correctly and please let me know where I misunderstand. Yes on the Persian and Greek empires. At the supposed time of Jesus, the Roman Empire was still going strong. In 64 AD, Nero blames the Christians for the destruction of Rome. A scant 30 years after the beginning of the faith in Jesus Christ seems to me to be a rapid progression since there was no internet or radio.

I would disagree with you here. The Roman empire had reached its height and was on a rapid downward decline. They, IMO, had over reached their abilties in terms of trying to conquer the world. I wonder, is it possible, just possible mind, that the history we know today regarding the onset of Christianity, etc, was the result of historians trying to paint this said decline as anyone else's fault but their own? A sort of "et tu Brutus" to make themselves look better? Just speculating there of course!

With just one person, Paul, combing much of the Roman Empire (as they have said--because of the common Greek language and the Roman roads), I think there is a possibility for the faith to disseminate with ease. How much more when there are many who go forth.

I would say that that had already been occurring. There is speculation that Christ had traveled to India, pure conjecture of course but there was also a great deal of travel before and after this time frame. On the topic of Paul, I am highly doubtful of his true import. He never spoke to The Christ, if we are to believe the Bible. Its interesting to me that Paul rather than Peter, the alleged basis of the RCC, is given more media attention than the founder of the RCC. We know that the Asian cultures had been moving to and from the Middle East, so is it so difficult to take that to the next step in terms of the sharing of information?


Yes, that did have a big impact. IMO, I believe it began the destruction of the real faith as shared by those who followed. I believe that at that time, people became Christians in name only and the political system began to manipulate it. (my personal opinion)

Here we agree. The Senators of the Roman empire saw the desolution of their culture and were trying to form a new one, this time with Christianity at the forefront. IMO, it has been political rather than spiritually driven since it began.


LOL. That is the truth. By the time one finishes a short statement, it morphs into fifty subjects.

I agree that there is much debate. Certainly we are not going to come to "the right answer" but rather remain in what one believes in, each one thoroughly believing that he/she is correct.

So, yes, acknowledging that there is much debate and it certainly will continue. With "other Gospels" at odds with the four Gospels, each will build their own fire.

My favorite is Thomas, which they had to suppress because it would negate the tighes that the RCC needed for sustenance. If God was assessible outside of the church, what need for the church? "Lift a rock and you will find me, split a piece of wood and I am there" is without doubt one of my favorite understanding of the concept of God.

As I mentioned, there really isn't any one thing that is going to nail it for one side or the other. Thus, as I read the quotes from Lucian and Tacitus, it simply creates a position of "possibilities". One could surmise that there was a person who created a problem. It is a good fit for one to believe they are talking about Christ Jesus.

Thanks and likewise.

Looking forward to this continued discussion. Bright blessings and a fine good morning! Jo

PS...not sure why my comments are so hard to see in this. It makes me crazy. If you cannot read this, please let me know. Computers make me nuts.

 

[JoStories]

That was just the source I used. I think your more correct in the 3 tiers generally speaking

Again I doubt he even has the second, if we go by that standard.

He seems to avoid the topic. And rarely if ever, uses any academic sources.

Again, thank you but I would rather not get into the middle of a squabble. I like debate and discussion but prefer not to be in something more personal. Have a good day sir.

 

[Kenny]

So besides comprehensive issues, you have trouble writing accurately what you mean?




Then what does "with just one person" imply? Oh mr master degree in theology

Shalom!

Edit: For that matter, I have transgressed the primary commandment of love in my conversations with you. In how I have addressed you, I ask for your forgiveness and will not follow that way of communication with you from this moment forward.

 

[rusra02]

That rally does not answer the question though. And further, it presumes that Christ actually lived. There is no valid basis to believe he was really a person outside books written we'll after he allegedly lived. I respect that you believe he did but there is still no conclusive proof either way.

I disagree. As stated in W (April 1, 2012) "Secular historians, including Josephus and Tacitus of the first century, mention Jesus as a historical figure. More important, the Gospels convincingly show that Jesus was a real person, not a fictional character. The record is specific and detailed in stating time and place. For example, Gospel writer Luke mentions seven ruling officials—whose names have been corroborated by secular historians—in order to establish the year Jesus began his ministry.—Luke 3:1, 2, 23.
The evidence that Jesus is a historical person is compelling. “Most scholars will admit that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth did live in the first century,” states the book Evidence for the Historical Jesus."
I think the false doubts raised up against the Bible's historical narrative are really the wishful thinking of persons who do not want to believe that the Bible is what it claims to be, the Word of God.