cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[gnostic]

Jesus himself made reference to the life of Noah, and to the flood, so the implication of doubting his word is to doubt all of scripture as prophecy. If Noah lived, and the flood occurred, then the record of Genesis 10 is a legitimate record of descendants after the flood.

That 1st century jew know of the story don’t make Noah a real person in history, and there have been no such flood as described by Genesis 7 & 8.

There are no physical evidence to support that destroy every civilizations and water covering the highest mountains.

It is a myth that 1st century BCE Jews adapted from older Babylonian myths (eg Epic of Gilgamesh, the 16th century BCE Epic of Atrahasis), which was adapted from even much older Sumerian myths (eg the Eridu Genesis or the myth of Ziusudra, as well as being alluded to in the Death of Bilgames and in one of the versions of the Sumerian King Lists - WB-62 recension).

The part about God instructing Noah to build a vessel to save his family and some animals, as well as the smell of sacrifices drew God, originally appeared in the Ziusudra myth, and all other later versions, eg Atrahasis in the Epic of Atrahasis and Utanapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Epic of Atrahasis also included the scenes of Atrahasis releasing birds to find lands, first appeared in this epic, a thousand years before Genesis was first composed in the 6th century BCE. It may have also originated in the Ziusudra story, but parts of the Eridu Genesis tablet is missing due to fragmentation of the clay tablet.

The Genesis story isn’t older than the Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian versions, nor was it original.

Many of the Babylonian myths were very popular during the mid-2nd millennium BCE that some copies were found as far away as Hattusa in the Hittite empire, Ugarit, the Canaanite Megiddo and in Egypt, and remained popular in the Neo-Assyrian empire (eg Library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, 7th century BCE) and Neo-Babylonian empire (6th century BCE).

You have described Nimrod as a fictional character, but this is based on a number of assumptions, including human longevity.

So you believe Nimrod was older than the patriarch Methuselah by over 3000 years?

If you are, then you’re being absurd.

There are no evidence to support anyone in ancient time with longevity of 130 years. The whole over 900 year old people like Adam, Seth, Methuselah and Noah are pure myths.

 

[gnostic]

So, let me take you back two thousand years, to the writngs of Flavius Josephus.

In Antiques of the Jews, Josephus writes, 'Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work; and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than anyone could expect;...

Flavius Josephus is only historically accurate from his time h1st century CE) to that of the 2nd century BCE. Everything before 2nd century BCE, he distorted history due to his reliance on scriptures as primary source. Josephus make the assumption that the Hebrew Scriptures were true.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That 1st century jew know of the story don’t make Noah a real person in history, and there have been no such flood as described by Genesis 7 & 8.

There are no physical evidence to support that destroy every civilizations and water covering the highest mountains.

It is a myth that 1st century BCE Jews adapted from older Babylonian myths (eg Epic of Gilgamesh, the 16th century BCE Epic of Atrahasis), which was adapted from even much older Sumerian myths (eg the Eridu Genesis or the myth of Ziusudra, as well as being alluded to in the Death of Bilgames and in one of the versions of the Sumerian King Lists - WB-62 recension).

The part about God instructing Noah to build a vessel to save his family and some animals, as well as the smell of sacrifices drew God, originally appeared in the Ziusudra myth, and all other later versions, eg Atrahasis in the Epic of Atrahasis and Utanapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Epic of Atrahasis also included the scenes of Atrahasis releasing birds to find lands, first appeared in this epic, a thousand years before Genesis was first composed in the 6th century BCE. It may have also originated in the Ziusudra story, but parts of the Eridu Genesis tablet is missing due to fragmentation of the clay tablet.

The Genesis story isn’t older than the Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian versions, nor was it original.

Many of the Babylonian myths were very popular during the mid-2nd millennium BCE that some copies were found as far away as Hattusa in the Hittite empire, Ugarit, the Canaanite Megiddo and in Egypt, and remained popular in the Neo-Assyrian empire (eg Library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, 7th century BCE) and Neo-Babylonian empire (6th century BCE).



So you believe Nimrod was older than the patriarch Methuselah by over 3000 years?

If you are, then you’re being absurd.

There are no evidence to support anyone in ancient time with longevity of 130 years. The whole over 900 year old people like Adam, Seth, Methuselah and Noah are pure myths.

The fact that it is Jesus making the statement about Noah is significant, because he wasn't just 'any old man'. Jesus' own testimony is that he spoke only the words of his Father, and the evidence that he did so was in his works. [John 10:37,38]

What the Word of God does is bring judgement to our 'front door'. The Bible hangs together as an indivisible whole, which each person is forced to either accept fully, or reject fully. Thus, by the time we reach the grave, most of us will either knowingly, or unwittingly, have already made the choice 'for', or 'against' the Saviour. As Jesus put it, 'He that is not with me is against me'. [Luke 11:23]

The great ages attached to the early men and women also have a meaning, but l can't tell you fully what it is, other than that it helps our understanding of the seven day prophetic week.

Not one of the men of the Bible reached beyond the thousand year age limit, for this was 'as a day with God'. In Genesis 2:17, God specifies that anyone eating of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil would die 'in the day'. For those that see Genesis 1 as a prologue, this is taken to mean that no sinner would live beyond the thousand years of 'God's day'. Methuselah, the oldest man in the Bible, lived to be 969.

After the flood, the ages of men begin to fall. In Psalm 90:10 the phrase used of the average human life span is, 'three score years and ten'.

One thing l did come across recently, which l'm sure you can check on, is that a day of 24 hours is not a constant. June 29, 2022 was 1.6 milliseconds short of the standard day. The reason given was changes in the icecap. Which leads me to think, What if the atmospheric conditions and water levels in ancient times were very different from those in modern times? Would this change the length of a day by altering the speed of the earth's rotation? Just a thought.

The relationship between the Bible and ancient myths is always presented by unbelievers as one of 'myth first, Bible second'. But, l believe that scripture is prophecy from God, and this places the Word of God before the myth because the knowledge of these events always existed in the mind of God. The fact that a prophet, Moses, records these events after the myths are written, does not diminish the prophetic word or make it less true.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Flavius Josephus is only historically accurate from his time h1st century CE) to that of the 2nd century BCE. Everything before 2nd century BCE, he distorted history due to his reliance on scriptures as primary source. Josephus make the assumption that the Hebrew Scriptures were true.

It's an assumption that l agree with.

 

[gnostic]

The fact that it is Jesus making the statement about Noah is significant, because he wasn't just 'any old man'. Jesus' own testimony is that he spoke only the words of his Father, and the evidence that he did so was in his works. [John 10:37,38]

Repeating knowledge already known (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27) by every other religious Jews in his time, isn’t a big deal.

Beside that the original 1st century gospels were composed anonymously. The names of evangelists were only ascribed to the 4 gospels by early to mid 2nd century CE church scribes.

And the those that were ascribed to Matthew and Luke were written around the 80s CE, were composed 2 generations after Jesus’ ministry, which make the gospels weren’t eyewitnesses’ accounts.

For instance, I get the impression that Joseph died before Jesus’ ministry started, while Mary supposedly witnessed her son’s crucifixion. We don’t know exactly when and how either died, and nothing more is known beyond the 30s about Mary.

So I don’t see how either gospels (of Matthew and of Luke) would have dictated from either Joseph or Mary on two very different Jesus’ birth stories. The gospel of Luke seemed to be writing from Mary’s view after the shepherds and host of angels incidence (Luke 2:8-20), where Mary...

19 and Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart.

So if Mary died at some times during the 30s CE, how would - who ever wrote gospel of Luke - could write something about Jesus’ some 40-plus years later?

As I have said earlier, all four gospels were anonymously and not contemporary (or near-contemporary) to Jesus’ ministry. So EITHER the 2 authors relied on 2 different sources, OR the 2 authors fabricated the stories on their own.

The only things the two versions of Jesus’ birth agreed upon, is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and when Herod the Great was still alive at that time...that all they have in common. Everything else in details in the 2 narratives, differed.

Now if the shepherds I had mentioned wrote shortly afterward on what they saw about the angelic host, then I would have been more open...but the gospel of Luke was written in the 80s, so I am thinking the author invented this shepherd-angel incidence.

Likewise, no one recorded the event of slaughters in Bethlehem or Joseph moving his family to Egypt in Matthew 2. Josephus recorded many events about Herod that include murders and betrayals, but not a single thing about the massacre in Bethlehem of boys 2 year-old or younger, which tells me the author of Matthew invented this incident that included the 3 sages.

According to the 2 different narratives, the one in Matthew seemed to indicate Joseph was already living in Bethlehem, with no mention of Nazareth or Galilee until they left Egypt.

But in Luke, both Joseph and Mary were residents in Nazareth, and only went to Bethlehem to register for census, because of Joseph’s ancestry in Bethlehem.

I know enough about Roman history that census only take place in Roman province for taxing purposes, not in client kingdom, where the king or ruler pay tributes not taxes, and I also know that you would only require to register WHERE YOU CURRENTLY RESIDE, and NOT where you were born or where your ancestors lived.

And as I said, Judaea is a client kingdom, not a Roman province, and as a client kingdom, no registration for census in non-Roman provinces. Plus, Galilee was a client kingdom under the rule of Herod Antipas (4 BCE to 39 CE), so residents of Galilee didn’t to register for census in Judaea in 6 CE.

Judaea didn’t become a Roman province, 10 years after Herod’s death and after Augustus banished Herod’s son from Judaea, annexing Judaea into the Roman Empire as a province, in 6 CE.

It was only then, in 6 CE, that Augustus had appointed Publius Sulpicius Quirinius as legatus of Syria (6 - 12 CE), and had Quirinius to oversee the census of Judaea. Josephus even recorded this in Antiquities of the Jews about Quirinius and the census.

Quirinius was never governor of Syria, when Herod was still alive. In fact, Quirinius was legatus of Galatea (12 - 1 BCE), as well as leading the legions to quell rebellion of a tribe that in the mountains of Cappadocia and Cilicia.

With all, I don’t think any of the gospels are reliable.

The only things in any of the gospels can be verified, are the arrest and death of John the Baptist. But Josephus (Antiquities 18:5:2) recorded the execution had nothing to do with Antipas’ promise to his wife’s daughter after the “dance”; Antipas feared rebellion after John’s arrest, hence the execution. Plus how John was executed wasn’t mentioned.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Repeating knowledge already known (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27) by every other religious Jews in his time, isn’t a big deal.

Beside that the original 1st century gospels were composed anonymously. The names of evangelists were only ascribed to the 4 gospels by early to mid 2nd century CE church scribes.

And the those that were ascribed to Matthew and Luke were written around the 80s CE, were composed 2 generations after Jesus’ ministry, which make the gospels weren’t eyewitnesses’ accounts.

For instance, I get the impression that Joseph died before Jesus’ ministry started, while Mary supposedly witnessed her son’s crucifixion. We don’t know exactly when and how either died, and nothing more is known beyond the 30s about Mary.

So I don’t see how either gospels (of Matthew and of Luke) would have dictated from either Joseph or Mary on two very different Jesus’ birth stories. The gospel of Luke seemed to be writing from Mary’s view after the shepherds and host of angels incidence (Luke 2:8-20), where Mary...

​

So if Mary died at some times during the 30s CE, how would - who ever wrote gospel of Luke - could write something about Jesus’ some 40-plus years later?

As I have said earlier, all four gospels were anonymously and not contemporary (or near-contemporary) to Jesus’ ministry. So EITHER the 2 authors relied on 2 different sources, OR the 2 authors fabricated the stories on their own.

The only things the two versions of Jesus’ birth agreed upon, is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and when Herod the Great was still alive at that time...that all they have in common. Everything else in details in the 2 narratives, differed.

Now if the shepherds I had mentioned wrote shortly afterward on what they saw about the angelic host, then I would have been more open...but the gospel of Luke was written in the 80s, so I am thinking the author invented this shepherd-angel incidence.

Likewise, no one recorded the event of slaughters in Bethlehem or Joseph moving his family to Egypt in Matthew 2. Josephus recorded many events about Herod that include murders and betrayals, but not a single thing about the massacre in Bethlehem of boys 2 year-old or younger, which tells me the author of Matthew invented this incident that included the 3 sages.

According to the 2 different narratives, the one in Matthew seemed to indicate Joseph was already living in Bethlehem, with no mention of Nazareth or Galilee until they left Egypt.

But in Luke, both Joseph and Mary were residents in Nazareth, and only went to Bethlehem to register for census, because of Joseph’s ancestry in Bethlehem.

I know enough about Roman history that census only take place in Roman province for taxing purposes, not in client kingdom, where the king or ruler pay tributes not taxes, and I also know that you would only require to register WHERE YOU CURRENTLY RESIDE, and NOT where you were born or where your ancestors lived.

And as I said, Judaea is a client kingdom, not a Roman province, and as a client kingdom, no registration for census in non-Roman provinces. Plus, Galilee was a client kingdom under the rule of Herod Antipas (4 BCE to 39 CE), so residents of Galilee didn’t to register for census in Judaea in 6 CE.

Judaea didn’t become a Roman province, 10 years after Herod’s death and after Augustus banished Herod’s son from Judaea, annexing Judaea into the Roman Empire as a province, in 6 CE.

It was only then, in 6 CE, that Augustus had appointed Publius Sulpicius Quirinius as legatus of Syria (6 - 12 CE), and had Quirinius to oversee the census of Judaea. Josephus even recorded this in Antiquities of the Jews about Quirinius and the census.

Quirinius was never governor of Syria, when Herod was still alive. In fact, Quirinius was legatus of Galatea (12 - 1 BCE), as well as leading the legions to quell rebellion of a tribe that in the mountains of Cappadocia and Cilicia.

With all, I don’t think any of the gospels are reliable.

The only things in any of the gospels can be verified, are the arrest and death of John the Baptist. But Josephus (Antiquities 18:5:2) recorded the execution had nothing to do with Antipas’ promise to his wife’s daughter after the “dance”; Antipas feared rebellion after John’s arrest, hence the execution. Plus how John was executed wasn’t mentioned.

You've clearly chosen to ignore the abundance of scholarship that refutes the claims you make about the dating and authorship of the Gospels.

It may surprise you to hear that the dating of the Gospels is dependent on the internal integrity of the text. Those who try to provide a date later than 70 CE do so because they cannot accept prophecy, and Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple! So, now these sceptical scholars find themselves in a diificult spot. They have to continue to try to provide a cohesive explanation of the text in the light of a prejudice against prophecy. This involves trying to explain to the world why numerous apostles could not give their testimonies honestly, and why the Jewish wars, and destruction of the temple, receive zero attention!

Ask a Roman historian if the late dating of the Gospels is accurate, and they will tell you that it's madness! The wording in Acts 1, tells us that the account Luke was writing was a chronological account, which allows us to track the dates of events in the book. I know of no serious scholar who dates the end of the book later than 64 or 65 CE.

The other issues, about the census of Herod, and about Quirinius, can also been explained quite easily. The census at Jesus' birth was not a census conducted under Roman custom, but under Jewish custom. This is why Jews were required to return to the towns of their ancestors, and be counted by tribal affiliation. Both Mary and Joseph were of David's ancestral line, and were required to be counted in Bethlehem the birthplace of Jesse and David.

Quirinius, or Cyrenius, is mentioned in Luke 2:2, where it says, '(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)'.

When we read Josephus, who has quite a bit to say about Cyrenius, we discover that his second taxing in Judea occurred after the banishment of Archelaus. This is written about at length in Antiq.XVIII i.

If you check this out for yourself, you will quickly realise that Cyrenius was involved in two censuses. The first occurred whilst he was a governor in Cilicia (administratively part of Syria), and the second, years later, when he shared responsibility with Coponius in Syria. During the first census, when Herod was king in Judea (which was decided by the Roman senate), it was deemed preferable to have the census run along the lines of Jewish custom.

The biblical account is, therefore, accurate in the finest detail.

 

[gnostic]

As an aside, one should not rush to dismiss the writings of Homer as pure fiction, either. I have visited the site of Troy (Troas) in Turkey, and l also know that this town is mentioned by the apostle Paul [2 Corinthians 2:12], who preached there.

YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING.

I am not dismissing about places existing, but the stories are different matter.

PLACES (towns, cities, kingdoms, civilizations, etc) may exist, but the stories of PEOPLE or stories of EVENTS may not be "HISTORICAL".

This apply to myths and religious texts, as well as to fiction and fairytales.

Rameses or Pi-Ramesses the actual name of the city, which the "House of Ramesses" existed in ancient time, but it was built in the 19th dynasty, not the 18th dynasty, in which Moses "supposedly" in the 15th century BCE, don't mean Moses is a real person or the mass-exodus took place.

I see the bible stories like Creation, Abraham, Moses, etc, no different from Babylonian or Egyptian myths.

Egyptian myths also have names of real cities, like Inwn (Egyptian for Greek Heliopolis), Men-nefer (Greek Memphis), Waset (Greek for Thebes). Each of these cities have their own creation myths:

• Atum and Ra were creators, where Heliopolis is part of its myth.
• Ptah was the creator god for Memphis.
• Thebes play important role in the myth of Amun.

And it is the same for every other myths in the ancient Middle East (Sumer and Babylon).

Just because these exist, don't mean the myths are true. This apply to much of books from Genesis to Solomon.

 

[gnostic]

The other issues, about the census of Herod, and about Quirinius, can also been explained quite easily. The census at Jesus' birth was not a census conducted under Roman custom, but under Jewish custom. This is why Jews were required to return to the towns of their ancestors, and be counted by tribal affiliation. Both Mary and Joseph were of David's ancestral line, and were required to be counted in Bethlehem the birthplace of Jesse and David.

Quirinius, or Cyrenius, is mentioned in Luke 2:2, where it says, '(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)'.

When we read Josephus, who has quite a bit to say about Cyrenius, we discover that his second taxing in Judea occurred after the banishment of Archelaus. This is written about at length in Antiq.XVIII i. It is also mentioned by Luke in Acts 5:37, where it is linked to the uprising of Judas of Galilee.

There was no two census, Redemptionsong.

Two governors served in Syria during the time Quirinius was governor of Galatea (12 - 1 BCE), when Herod was still alive (reign 37 - 4 BCE):

• Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9 - 7/6 BCE)
• Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE)

If you actually bother to read Antiquities of the Jews, only one census took place, when Quirinius was governor from 6 CE to 12 CE.

Josephus also mentioned Saturninus, as did Tertullian (166 - 225 CE) a Christian author.

Tertullian wrote in Against Marcion, 4, 19, Saturninus was governor of Syria WHEN JESUS WAS BORN, with no mention of Quirinius.

There are no two census in Judaea. You got this BS from apologetic sources. The imaginary "first" census don't exist.

Seriously, this is why I don't trust Christian apologists, like yourself.

They don't bother to do actual research, so they fabricate stories and elaborate excuses, not seeing the evidence when they hit them on their noses.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There was no two census, Redemptionsong.

Two governors served in Syria during the time Quirinius was governor of Galatea (12 - 1 BCE), when Herod was still alive (reign 37 - 4 BCE):

• Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9 - 7/6 BCE)
• Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE)

If you actually bother to read Antiquities of the Jews, only one census took place, when Quirinius was governor from 6 CE to 12 CE.

Josephus also mentioned Saturninus, as did Tertullian (166 - 225 CE) a Christian author.

Tertullian wrote in Against Marcion, 4, 19, Saturninus was governor of Syria WHEN JESUS WAS BORN, with no mention of Quirinius.

There are no two census in Judaea. You got this BS from apologetic sources. The imaginary "first" census don't exist.

Seriously, this is why I don't trust Christian apologists, like yourself.

They don't bother to do actual research, they fabricate stories and elaborate excuses, not seeing the evidence when they hit them on their noses.

Ok. Let's inspect this further and see if what you say is consistent with the evidence.

In Josephus' Antiquities, book 18, chapter 2 , verse 1 he writes:
'When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Anthony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them receieved their own techrachy, and settled the affairs thereof.'

This is a helpful passage because it allows us both to see a date that anchors our chronology. The battle of Actium is widely accepted as having taken place in 31 BCE. Thirty-seven years later would take us to 6 CE.

It is your claim, based on these dates, that Jesus must have been born in 6 CE, as this was the year of Cyrenius' taxings, which you say only occurred once.

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. [Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5]

What Josephus also tells us is that on the death of Herod, the will of Herod was enacted under Roman supervision. This meant that Archelaus became ethnarch of Judea and Samaria (4 BCE - 6 CE), Herod Antipas tetrach of Galilee and Perea (4 BCE - 39 CE), and Philip tetrach of a number of other territories including Iturea (4 BCE - 34 CE). Josephus then adds, 'But in the tenth year of Archelaus' government, both his brethren and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation amongst them'.

So, Archelaus loses his position and is banished to Vienna. This happens in 6 CE, the year in which Cyrenius is said to have taxed Judea. This makes perfect sense, because the Romans then turned Judea into a procuratorial province (with Caesarea as the capital). The NT mentions the names of three procurators, Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE), Antonius Felix (52-59 CE), and Portius Festus (59-62 CE).

Josephus, filling in some of the gaps, tells us that Coponius was the first procurator, taking the post in 6 CE, and that he was succeeded by Marcus Ambivius. From 15 -26 CE the procurator was Valerius Gratus, who was preceded by Annius Rufus.

As a fuller picture emerges, it is quite evident that Luke, and the other Gospel writers, were providing a highly accurate account of the historical 'markers'. Luke, whose account provides an order of events, supplies us with essential information with which to cross-reference. In Luke 3:1,2 he writes, 'Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests ..' [Caiaphas, called Joseph Caiaphas, is said to have been high priest from 18-36 CE]

The dates given for Tiberius, who became emperor on the death of Augustus are 14-37 CE. The fifteenth year of Tiberius would be about 29 CE, when Pontius Pilate would have been procurator. Luke tells us that it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign that John, the son of Zacharias the priest, began his preaching.

From this information, it is clear that Luke was not ignorant of the taxing undertaken by Cyrenius in 6CE, and he was certainly not confusing this census with a quite different (Jewish) census under Herod the Great.

The issue that is not adequately addressed by these records is how long a time passed between the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem and the death of Herod. The Gospels do not specify the time period, and the Roman histories do not contain information about Jesus' birth.

Mary, Jesus' mother, who would have known all the details of the birth, remained alive throughout Jesus' life, and even witnessed the crucifixion alongside John. Since John looked after Mary, and went on to live a long life, he certainly would have had firsthand knowledge of the details of Jesus' birth. He also had every opportunity to share this information with the other disciples living in Jerusalem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What your response shows is a double standard.

No double standard at all, and the fact that you say this tells me that you once again are ignoring the points I'm actually making.

Actium has contemporary, independent records. It also has artefacts that do not rely on "testimony".

Your supernatural bible has NO contemporary, independent records. It also has NO artefacts.

What double standard?
There's nothing there to have a double standard about.

Actium has evidence.
The bible has only claims.

You make the claim that evidence must be verifiable, or must be seen to be true, and then, in talking about the battle of Actium, you acknowledge the need to trust historians.

I said none of these things.
You must have imagined that.

You didn't read the Latin and Greek accounts of the battle of Actium, l gather? You relied on historians to provide you with information, which you accepted on trust.

On TRUST, yes. But not trust in historians. Trust in the academic process. A very tried and tested method of inquiry.

Also, I COULD go and read those accounts. I COULD go and study those artefacts. I even COULD go look at the originals, but that would require the proper qualifications - which I COULD go and get if I wanted to.

But no matter how much credentials and qualifications one has... one would always ONLY have the biblical claims and no contemporary, independent records or artefacts.

To prove the Bible to be untrustworthy

This is a blatant shift of the burden of proof.
If you wish to convince me that the bible is accurate, then it is upto you to demonstrate it is trustworthy.
I don't have to do anything.

You failing to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the bible, is enough for me to dismiss it as such.
Your claim, your burden of proof.


Having said that, I already pointed out plenty of things know from history (through the tried and tested academic process) that show plenty of rather crucial OT bible stories to be simply false.

you must provide evidence of inconsistency in the message, or inaccuracy in the factual claims.

Nope. See above. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I'm asking you to show me, with chapter and verse, where these contradictions, or errors, exist in the text.

I already did this. You ignored it.

cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too | Page 32 | Religious Forums

 

[Redemptionsong]

Actium has contemporary, independent records. It also has artefacts that do not rely on "testimony".

Ok. So you accept that Actium actually took place. Flavius Josephus, who was born only about 70 years after the battle, mentions it in his Antiquities. In one passage, he says, 'At this time it was that the fight happened at Actium, between Octavius Caesar and Antony, in the seventh year of the reign of Herod; and then it was also that there was an earthquake in Judea, such a one as had not happened at any other time, and which earthquake brought a great destruction upon the cattle in that country.'

Do you think that Josephus was a reliable historian?

 

[gnostic]

Do you think that Josephus was a reliable historian?

History depends on a number of factors. I am not talking about just Josephus, I am referring to any historian.

Is the historian writing some events that happened during his own lifetime or some other period of time?

The reliability of any historian get lesser and lesser the further back in time he or she was writing about.

The other, is sources: What sources or whose sources did the historian use?

Again, time is a factor for using sources.

If the sources are recording events that are contemporary to historian/author?

If the sources are not contemporary to the events being recorded, then the further back in time the less reliable is the source.

Another factor, is where historian is using that a source (eg source A), and source A may have its own source (B), and source B may use its own source (source C), and so on, all the way to the original event. The more successive sources exist to the original event, the less reliable.

Another is the credibility of the historian, and the credibility of the sources being used. Some historians have reputations of being dodgy and unreliable.

For instance, the Greek historians Thucydides and Xenophon are more reliable than Herodotus. The Roman historian Tactius is more credible and reliable than Cassius Dio.

Josephus is reliable when it come to recording events that are contemporary to him, eg the Jewish-Roman war. And he isn't bad with events that occurred 50 to 100 years before his time.

Th biggest problem with Josephus is when he used the biblical texts (Old Testament) as his sources, because of the reliability of biblical texts are often shown to unreliable, which make his own writings unreliable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok. So you accept that Actium actually took place. Flavius Josephus, who was born only about 70 years after the battle, mentions it in his Antiquities. In one passage, he says, 'At this time it was that the fight happened at Actium, between Octavius Caesar and Antony, in the seventh year of the reign of Herod; and then it was also that there was an earthquake in Judea, such a one as had not happened at any other time, and which earthquake brought a great destruction upon the cattle in that country.'

Do you think that Josephus was a reliable historian?

@gnostic already answered you better then I could have done.

Meanwhile, you once again ignored most of my post.

 

[Redemptionsong]

History depends on a number of factors. I am not talking about just Josephus, I am referring to any historian.

Is the historian writing some events that happened during his own lifetime or some other period of time?

The reliability of any historian get lesser and lesser the further back in time he or she was writing about.

The other, is sources: What sources or whose sources did the historian use?

Again, time is a factor for using sources.

If the sources are recording events that are contemporary to historian/author?

If the sources are not contemporary to the events being recorded, then the further back in time the less reliable is the source.

Another factor, is where historian is using that a source (eg source A), and source A may have its own source (B), and source B may use its own source (source C), and so on, all the way to the original event. The more successive sources exist to the original event, the less reliable.

Another is the credibility of the historian, and the credibility of the sources being used. Some historians have reputations of being dodgy and unreliable.

For instance, the Greek historians Thucydides and Xenophon are more reliable than Herodotus. The Roman historian Tactius is more credible and reliable than Cassius Dio.

Josephus is reliable when it come to recording events that are contemporary to him, eg the Jewish-Roman war. And he isn't bad with events that occurred 50 to 100 years before his time.

Th biggest problem with Josephus is when he used the biblical texts (Old Testament) as his sources, because of the reliability of biblical texts are often shown to unreliable, which make his own writings unreliable.

Well, l disagree with you about the reliability of the Bible. Both the Hebrew and Greek Testaments have huge documentary support.

But, even if we limit our acceptance of Josephus' reliability to events close to his own lifetime, an issue arises. Why? Because this same Josephus records information about John the Baptist, Jesus, and the brother of Jesus, James the Just. Josephus was not a Christian, but he was very aware of the Christian movement within his country.

In the translation of Josephus' works by William Whiston, there's an appendix dedicated to the question of the validity of the passages that talk about John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and James the Just. It includes a thorough survey of the referencing of Josephus by other historians and scholars, each of whom uses Josephus' works to gather evidence on John, Jesus and James. The conclusion reached by Whiston, a Professor of Mathematics, was that these references were genuine.

Let's also bring the question of the dating of the NT books into the debate. Sceptics claim a late dating of the Gospels, post 70 CE, because they cannot be seen to accept prophecy, and Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple. If the Gospels are shown to have been written in the 50s, then that would be within 20 or so years of the crucifixion. Eyewitnesses would have been alive to provide testimony, and the number of testimonies would be overwhelming!

Josephus helps to show that the (synoptic) Gospels were written at an early date. His books, Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews show the magnitude of the upheaval brought about by the wars with Rome between 66CE and 73CE.

Do you honestly believe that Luke, writing an account 'in order' in his Gospel and in the book of Acts, would leave out these wars if they had occurred prior to completion of his work? The same question can be asked of all the NT writers.

The book of Acts paints a picture of the early Church based in Jerusalem, but this Church was certainly not there after 70 CE. We know that John was later living on the island of Patmos; but where were all the other apostles, if they were not already dead? Tradition, supported by the abrupt ending to Acts, indicates that both Peter and Paul were put to death in Rome in the early to mid 60s.

 

[Redemptionsong]

@gnostic already answered you better then I could have done.

Meanwhile, you once again ignored most of my post.

I like to deal with one issue at a time.

Which single question would you like to discuss?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both the Hebrew and Greek Testaments have huge documentary support.

You continue to claim this, but you never follow through on it.

But, even if we limit our acceptance of Josephus' reliability to events close to his own life time, an issue arises. Why? Because this same Josephus records information about John the Baptist, Jesus, and the brother of Jesus, James the Just. Josephus was not a Christian, but he was very aware of the Christian movement within his country.

Yes, he was aware of it. And what he wrote down, was what christians were saying.
This makes his passages NOT independent. And we have already established that he wasn't contemporary either.

If you repeat the empty claims of others, you still only have empty claims.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You continue to claim this, but you never follow through on it.



Yes, he was aware of it. And what he wrote down, was what christians were saying.
This makes his passages NOT independent. And we have already established that he wasn't contemporary either.

If you repeat the empty claims of others, you still only have empty claims.

What are talking about?!

If you actually read Josephus' works, you would know that there is also a book entitled, 'The Life of Flavius Josephus', in which Josephus provides an autobiographical account of his life.

Here is an extract:
'Now, l am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, l am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother l am of the royal blood; for the children of Asmoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood and the dignity of a king for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather's father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus: he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who was first of all the high priests named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias; he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest; which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asmoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also. This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus; and l was born to Matthias in the first year of Caius Caesar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian, as was Justus born in the seventh, and Agrippa in the ninth. Thus l have set down the genealogy of my family as l have found it described in the public records, and so l bid adieu to those who culumniate me, [as of a lower original]'.

I hope you've digested this information. It should make you sick, because it shows how Josephus is actually linked to the Jewish priesthood.

Josephus here mentions the division of the sons of Aaron into twenty-four courses. Is he talking rubbish? Quite the opposite, because he's referring to the book of 1 Chronicles 24, where king David divided the priesthood into twenty-four courses.

And did you say that Josephus was not a contemporary? Just how 'contemporary' needs he to be to gather accurate information? Josephus was born in 37 CE, a mere four years after the crucifixion of Jesus! He died in about 100 CE, having published his 'Jewish War' in 77-8 CE, only a couple of years after the destuction of Jerusalem.

Then we have to consider the information that must have existed in his family. In this passage he talks about relatives who lived through all the years of Jesus' life! Would they not have had corroborating evidence?

Josephus was also closely connected to the Roman Emperor Nero, through friendhship with Nero's wife, Poppea.

Sorry, but your case against the Bible is rapidly dissolving into a joke!

The final straw appears when you ask for documentary evidence to support the whole Bible! Do you not realise that there are hundreds of historical events, places and persons mentioned in the Bible? This means that there is either documentary evidence or archaeological evidence that supports their existence. Do you want me to make a list of all the people whose existence we know to be real, based on this evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are talking about?!

If you actually read Josephus' works, you would know that there is also a book entitled, 'The Life of Flavius Josephus', in which Josephus provides an autobiographical account of his life.

Here is an extract:
'Now, l am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, l am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother l am of the royal blood; for the children of Asmoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood and the dignity of a king for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather's father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus: he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who was first of all the high priests named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias; he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest; which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asmoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also. This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus; and l was born to Matthias in the first year of Caius Caesar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian, as was Justus born in the seventh, and Agrippa in the ninth. Thus l have set down the genealogy of my family as l have found it described in the public records, and so l bid adieu to those who culumniate me, [as of a lower original]'.

I hope you've digested this information. It should make you sick, because it shows how Josephus is actually linked to the Jewish priesthood.

Josephus here mentions the division of the sons of Aaron into twenty-four courses. Is he talking rubbish? Quite the opposite, because he's referring to the book of 1 Chronicles 24, where king David divided the priesthood into twenty-four courses.

And did you say that Josephus was not a contemporary? Just how 'contemporary' needs he to be to gather accurate information? Josephus was born in 37 CE, a mere four years after the crucifixion of Jesus! He died in about 100 CE, having published his 'Jewish War' in 77-8 CE, only a couple of years after the destuction of Jerusalem.

Then we have to consider the information that must have existed in his family. In this passage he talks about relatives who lived through all the years of Jesus' life! Would they not have had corroborating evidence?

Josephus was also closely connected to the Roman Emperor Nero, through friendhship with Nero's wife, Poppea.

I'm sorry... are we talking about Josephus in context of Jesus supposedly existing as a supernatural human, or about Josephus in context of Jews existing?

I thought it was the first. There's nothing there.

Sorry, but your case against the Bible is rapidly dissolving into a joke!

I'm not making a case "against" the bible (although I could, and have earlier in the thread.. twice...both times you ignored it)

You are supposed to building a case FOR the bible.
You are failing miserably.

The final straw appears when you ask for
documentary evidence to support the whole Bible!

I'm well aware that the bible is a collection of thousands upon thousands of claims, each of which would require their own support.

I don't care about the mondain claims. Like when it claims that city X existed or whatever.
What matters here are the claims regarding the religious beliefs. That there was a miracle worker Jesus who resurrected and all that jazz. If you list up all the extra-ordinary claims contained therein, not a single one has valid evidential support comparable to anything close that we have for something like the battle of Actium.

I assumed it was rather obvious that those are the claims we were discussing.

And don't try and accuse me of throwing it all on one pile as "the bible", as you yourself have been using such generalized language all throughout this thread.

I'm just playing along with your game.
If you wish to discuss any particular claim of the bible, then mention the claim and discuss that single claim.

Do you not realise that there are hundreds of historical events, places and persons mentioned in the Bible?

So?

This means that there is either documentary evidence or archaeological evidence that supports their existence.

Sure. It would be kind of weird if it didn't also reference people and places that didn't actually exist, now would it? Just like how Marvel comics also mentions places like New York, broadway, .. and real people like Obama, Brad Pitt, Bill Gates,... and real companies like Microsoft, IBM, etc.

Do you think that the existence of all those places, people and companies makes Spiderman real by association?

If no, then why would the bible be any different?

Do you want me to make a list of all the people whose existence we know to be real, based on this evidence?

Do you want me to make a list of all the archeological finds that show stories of the bible to be nothing but myth? I actually already gave you some. You ignored them.

Do you think that pointing out that Pontius Pilate existed, would make "Jesus the miracle worker" real by association?

ps: the Pontius Pilate that we know from actual archeology and Roman historical records, is a very different person from the Pontius Pilate depicted in the NT. Just saying.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Do you want me to make a list of all the archeological finds that show stories of the bible to be nothing but myth? I actually already gave you some. You ignored them.

Let's try again. One at a time will do nicely!

After that we can begin to talk about the miraculous claims of the Bible. But let's establish, first of all, that there is a skeleton of history that supports the miraculous claims. There's little point in going round in circles, you claiming that there were no eyewitnesses etc, when eyewitnesses were present when the Gospels were written.

The evidence l have quoted from Josephus establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the census of 6CE was not the census taken at Jesus' birth. Furthermore, there is evidence enough, taken from Josephus and Tacitus, to be pretty certain that Jesus existed, and was crucified whilst Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea.

If you cannot accept these basic historical claims then there is little point moving on to the more controversial issues about faith and miracles.

 

[Redemptionsong]

ps: the Pontius Pilate that we know from actual archeology and Roman historical records, is a very different person from the Pontius Pilate depicted in the NT. Just saying.

How so? You keep making these claims without ever backing them up.

Give me some 'actual' quotations, and we can begin to compare and contrast.