• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What the heck new evidence for Christ?

Heres another proof taht is proof the gospel is wrong. Im gonna start a new thread on it sense the confusion of the title of the article came out. This one thats worth arguing about believe me.

The ground, in both Galilee and Jerusalem, has disgorged a few stunners. In 1968, a skeletal heel nailed to a board by an iron spike was found in an ossuary, or bone box, inside a first-century tomb near Jerusalem. The heel, which belonged to a man named Yehochanan, helped settle a long-simmering debate about the plausibility of Gospel accounts of Jesus’s tomb burial. Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for the dregs of society, and some experts had scoffed at the idea that Romans would accord anyone so dispatched the dignity of a proper interment. More likely, Jesus’s remains, like those of other common criminals, would have been left to rot on the cross or tossed into a ditch, a fate that might have complicated the resurrection narrative. But Yehochanan’s heel offered an example of a crucified man from Jesus’s day for whom the Romans permitted Jewish burial.
Read more: Unearthing the World of Jesus | History | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
This is not proof of anything pertaining to Jesus existing, which is what we're debating. You have to brush up on your reading comprehension.
 
That depends quite a bit on what is claimed. The Koran is more recent than the Bible, do you accept it? The Book of Mormon is even more recent. By your standards it looks like you should accept both of these works.
Being more recent has nothing to do with credible evidence. It's the sources that back the claim that are important. Again, just like the other thread, Im going to end my dialogue with you due to the fact your reading comprehension is prohibiting you from understanding what's being said. Have a nice day:peace:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Being more recent has nothing to do with credible evidence. It's the sources that back the claim that are important. Again, just like the other thread, Im going to end my dialogue with you due to the fact your reading comprehension is prohibiting you from understanding what's being said. Have a nice day:peace:
Then why did you mention that the New Testament was more recent than other works? You are being inconsistent. That is the reason that I asked.

And no, I am not the one with a reading comprehension problem here.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your responding to a dialogue between me and riders and you have no idea what the dialogue is about:tearsofjoy:
Actually I do. My points are not related to hers. She makes some errors too, but they are not as bad as the ones that you make.

I accept that there probably was a man named Jesus. That does not take too much in the way of evidence. It is the magic claims that need to be supported by reliable evidence.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Time makes no difference in writing history if the sources are reliable and valid. The history books you read in school are written in the 20th and 21st century yet they speak on things that happened thousands of years ago. Are they not valid? And don't let me get into the facts of the NT writings and their copies being closer to date written than ALL LITERATURE FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD. ALL.
Religious texts are works of theology, literary art. Everything we supposedly know about Jesus comes from them. What is there to validate? Miracles?
 
Then why did you mention that the New Testament was more recent than other works? You are being inconsistent. That is the reason that I asked.

And no, I am not the one with a reading comprehension problem here.
Then why did you mention that the New Testament was more recent than other works? You are being inconsistent. That is the reason that I asked.

And no, I am not the one with a reading comprehension problem here.
I said I wasn't but I had to reply to this last comment.
Not more recent, but having COPIES CLOSER to the original writings than ALL LITERATURE FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD. So you mentioning Mormons and the Koran shows your reading comprehension is prohibiting you from understanding what's being said. That's all I have for you, have a nice day:peace:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I said I wasn't but I had to reply to this last comment.
Not more recent, but having COPIES CLOSER to the original writings than ALL LITERATURE FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD. So you mentioning Mormons and the Koran shows your reading comprehension is prohibiting you from understanding what's being said. That's all I have for you, have a nice day:peace:

Can you support that claim with a valid source? Or are you merely invoking Hitchen's Razor again? It is a rather pointless claim. First you must define "ancient world". I might call the Koran ancient in which case your claim still fails. Second you are ignoring the fact that early Catholic leaders destroyed many texts that disagreed with accepted version of the Bible. That only tells us that the homogenity is artificial and has nothing to do with the reliability of the works. There used to be a whole slue of "Gospels" for example. You need to do a lot better than that.
 
Religious texts are works of theology, literary art. Everything we supposedly know about Jesus comes from them. What is there to validate? Miracles?
Maybe you didn't catch the point of the post.
The point is If someone is going to reject Tacitus statement because it's 80 years after the fact, then they have to apply that same logic to every piece of literature from the ancient world. Being that one of the earliest copies from a secular piece of literature we have between the time it was written and copied is Homers Illiad and it's 400 years after the fact.
Herodotus considered to be one of the greatest historians of all time wrote his histories from 480-425B.C. The first copies are from 900A.D., 1300 years later. Yet you don't see them questioning his credibility. That was the point.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Maybe you didn't catch the point of the post.
The point is If someone is going to reject Tacitus statement because it's 80 years after the fact, then they have to apply that same logic to every piece of literature from the ancient world. Being that one of the earliest copies from a secular piece of literature we have between the time it was written and copied is Homers Illiad and it's 400 years after the fact.
Herodotus considered to be one of the greatest historians of all time wrote his histories from 480-425B.C. The first copies are from 900A.D., 1300 years later. Yet you don't see them questioning his credibility. That was the point.
The Iliad is not regarded as history but as mythology. There appears to have been an actual event that inspired it but that does not make that tale, that largely involves the actions of Greek Gods, as being historical. If you want to equate the Gospels with the Iliad I have no problem with that at all. There almost certainly was a real life event that inspired the Gospels too. And the God claims of the Gospels appear to be just as justified as the God claims of the Iliad.
 
The Iliad is not regarded as history but as mythology. There appears to have been an actual event that inspired it but that does not make that tale, that largely involves the actions of Greek Gods, as being historical. If you want to equate the Gospels with the Iliad I have no problem with that at all. There almost certainly was a real life event that inspired the Gospels too. And the God claims of the Gospels appear to be just as justified as the God claims of the Iliad.
Dictionary
Reading Comprehension- is the act of understanding what you are reading.

Where in this post is Homers Illiad mentioned as history? Nowhere. It is referred to as a "piece of literature". Herodotus on the other hand is referred to as a historian who wrote HISTORIES.
I'm sorry but due to your limited level of reading comprehension I can't dialogue with you anymore on this post or any other post because it's fruitless. Have a nice day and enjoy the rest of your time on this site:peace:
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Maybe you didn't catch the point of the post.
The point is If someone is going to reject Tacitus statement because it's 80 years after the fact, then they have to apply that same logic to every piece of literature from the ancient world. Being that one of the earliest copies from a secular piece of literature we have between the time it was written and copied is Homers Illiad and it's 400 years after the fact.
Herodotus considered to be one of the greatest historians of all time wrote his histories from 480-425B.C. The first copies are from 900A.D., 1300 years later. Yet you don't see them questioning his credibility. That was the point.
I don't have to accept or reject Tacitus' writings out of hand, and yes, we should take into consideration non-sourced material no matter where it comes from, even if it means not knowing as much as we would like to think we know.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Religious texts are works of theology, literary art. Everything we supposedly know about Jesus comes from them. What is there to validate? Miracles?

The miracles may have been gilding the lily, but then I am not much on supernatural stuff.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The Iliad is not regarded as history but as mythology. There appears to have been an actual event that inspired it but that does not make that tale, that largely involves the actions of Greek Gods, as being historical. If you want to equate the Gospels with the Iliad I have no problem with that at all. There almost certainly was a real life event that inspired the Gospels too. And the God claims of the Gospels appear to be just as justified as the God claims of the Iliad.

The Illiad is an epic poem.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Dictionary
Reading Comprehension- is the act of understanding what you are reading.

Where in this post is Homers Illiad mentioned as history? Nowhere. It is referred to as a "piece of literature". Herodotus on the other hand is referred to as a historian who wrote HISTORIES.
I'm sorry but due to your limited level of reading comprehension I can't dialogue with you anymore on this post or any other post because it's fruitless. Have a nice day and enjoy the rest of your time on this site:peace:


Then once again, why even bring it up? You keep shooting yourself in the foot by using bad examples. Have you forgotten how the early church getting rid of competing gospels negates your claim of the fact that the gospels tend to agree with older copies? There is no value in such a claim when such an action has been taken.

And I would suggest that you quit breaking the rules of the forum if you wish to remain here. Making personal accusations against others is against the rules. For me to point out that you keep refuting your own arguments is valid. For you to accuse others of poor reading comprehension is against the rules. Deal with the arguments and not the person.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Then once again, why even bring it up? You keep shooting yourself in the foot by using bad examples. Have you forgotten how the early church getting rid of competing gospels negates your claim of the fact that the gospels tend to agree with older copies? There is no value in such a claim when such an action has been taken.

And I would suggest that you quit breaking the rules of the forum if you wish to remain here. Making personal accusations against others is against the rules. For me to point out that you keep refuting your own arguments is valid. For you to accuse others of poor reading comprehension is against the rules. Deal with the arguments and not the person.

Lots and lots of early Christian writings didn't make the cut. Here's a list.
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
 
Top