• 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!

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

Astrophile

Active Member
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]

Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene was executed by Mark Antony in 33 BC - Lysanias - Wikipedia. He was not contemporary with Jesus or John the Baptist.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
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.

If so, it is unfortunate that Mary didn't tell John more about Jesus's childhood and adolescence. Historians, and thoughtful Christians and atheists, would like to know more about Jesus's early years. As the proverb says, 'the child is father of the man'.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene was executed by Mark Antony in 33 BC - Lysanias - Wikipedia. He was not contemporary with Jesus or John the Baptist.
It would certainly be a major blunder by an historian to confuse a tetrarch who ruled about 60 years previously!

Here is an explanation by Millar Burrows, author of 'What Mean These Stones?'. Millar was the director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and an authority on issues of archaeology and the Bible.

Millar writes: 'Luke's accuracy has been called into question also with regard to the statement that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene when the word of God came to John in the wilderness (Luke 3:1f), for Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, died in 34 BCE. Archaeology, however, has again come to the defense of the gospel. An inscription shows that there was another and later Lysanias of Abilene, though his exact dates are not attested.' [#192]
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
If so, it is unfortunate that Mary didn't tell John more about Jesus's childhood and adolescence. Historians, and thoughtful Christians and atheists, would like to know more about Jesus's early years. As the proverb says, 'the child is father of the man'.
We are told in Galatians, 'But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that are under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons'.

The Hebrew scriptures tell us about life under the law. It was not necessary to write a detailed account of Jesus' upbringing because, as a boy and young man, he followed Jewish law and lived righteously. This is why his heavenly Father is able to say, at the time of baptism, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom l am well pleased'.

The NT is about life lived in the Spirit of God. This is the Gospel of grace, and should be clearly distinguished from life led under the law. The Gospel of grace, in Christ, lS the new covenant. Jesus himself began to live life by the Spirit only after baptism, or anointing. This is why there are no healings, or miracles, recorded before his baptism (performed by Jesus).
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.

The historical Pontius Pilate from actual Roman records, including your beloved Josephus, depicts him as a cruel, arrogant and barbaric ruler. Somebody that only listens to himself and, if he really musts, to his superiors. Also as someone who doesn't care about Jews at all.

The bible in contrast depicts him as indecisive and as someone who had his mind changed by a mob of Jews.
The man described in the bible does not at all match the man we know from actual history and Roman records.

The Pontius Pilate we know from history, wouldn't change his ruling because a mob (he doesn't even like) demanded it. Instead, he would have more likely ordered a cruel beat-down of that mob.
 

TagliatelliMonster

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

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

Top of the post. 4th time I bring it to your attention.


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.

No gospels were written during a time when eyewitnesses could have still been alive.
And even if it were the case (it isn't), that wouldn't do either, as that wouldn't account for independent sources.

I can give you thousands of "eyewitnesses" of alien abduction. People that are still alive TODAY which you could go an talk to. People so sure of their claims that they even pass lie detector tests.

But I gather that you wouldn't believe that they were actually abducted by aliens.
The reason is simple. "eyewitness testimony" simply is not reliable enough to accept such extra-ordinary claims. Such claims require independent, corroborating evidence. In this case, it would require extra-biblical evidence. There isn't any.

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.

So what?
None of that establishes that Jesus wasn't just one of many claimed "messiah's". Such "messiah's" and "prophets" and "preachers" were abundant during that time.

I have no problems with a historical Jesus around which these myths were build.
Just like I have no problems with a historical Mohammed.

Prince (now King) Charles also exists. That doesn't mean that he is a god, like the people following the "prince charles movement" believe.

Prince Philip movement - Wikipedia

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

First, these are not facts.
It is not a historical fact that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus. There are no independent records of such at all.

However, Pilate ordered the execution of MANY people for all kinds of reasons. I have no problem accepting that the bible myth was build around the execution of one of those people. Or even several of those people where multiple actual stories were merged into one mythical story.

The religion obviously began in some way. I don't think any religion is invented in a vacuum.
Surely there were events, people, etc that served as the inspiration for it.

That doesn't make it true.
Just like Mohammed and his followers having actually existed doesn't make Islam as a whole correct.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The historical Pontius Pilate from actual Roman records, including your beloved Josephus, depicts him as a cruel, arrogant and barbaric ruler. Somebody that only listens to himself and, if he really musts, to his superiors. Also as someone who doesn't care about Jews at all.

The bible in contrast depicts him as indecisive and as someone who had his mind changed by a mob of Jews.
The man described in the bible does not at all match the man we know from actual history and Roman records.

The Pontius Pilate we know from history, wouldn't change his ruling because a mob (he doesn't even like) demanded it. Instead, he would have more likely ordered a cruel beat-down of that mob.
Well, my beloved Josephus, when read carefully, provides us with corroborating evidence that makes your unfounded claims seem foolish.

Here is what Josephus actually says about Pontius Pilate:
'But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter-quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effiges, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were want to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought these images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night-time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days, that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar..[to abbreviate the next, Pilate planned to strike the people who complained]...But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their deaths very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea.'

Now, if l, or anyone else, had accepted your version of events, it would leave us thinking that Pilate always acted in a cruel and malicious manner. But even a cruel man has the capacity for some feeling, and the evidence from Josephus is that Pilate was capable of giving in to the demands made by a resolute people whose only request was that they be able to follow the laws of their God.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene was executed by Mark Antony in 33 BC - Lysanias - Wikipedia. He was not contemporary with Jesus or John the Baptist.


From this site I get the quote in green.
Is Luke’s references of "Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene" a Biblical mistake?

Bible critics and skeptics have often pointed that Luke’s record of “Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene” (Luke 3:1) is not referenced in history. They claim that the only leader by that name in that locality was a son of Ptolemy, a king (not a tetrarch), whose capital was Chalcis in Coele-Syria, not in Abilene. And that this king ruled from 40–36 B.C.

Although it must be acknowledged that there is no precise historical affirmation that has been discovered yet of Luke’s reference, there are several indirect references to a Lysanias matching to the Lysanias of Luke rather than the son of Ptolemy which are supportive to Luke’s statement. Let’s examine these references:

  1. Josephus pointed to “Abila of Lysanias” (Antiquities xix. 5. 1) and to a tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antiquities xx. 7. 1; War ii. 11. 5 [215]; 12. 8 [247]). These references in Josephus affirm rather than clash with Luke’s references.
  2. A medal has been discovered labelling a certain Lysanias as “tetrarch and high priest.” If this points to either, it more likely points to Luke’s Lysanias.
  3. In addition, two inscriptions were found, one of which shows that Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, left offspring. And the other, that at the period when Tiberius was linked with Augustus, there was a “tetrarch Lysanias” (Boeckh, Corp. inscr. Gr. 4523, 4521). – Davidson, Intr. to N. T. 1. pp. 214-221, 1st ed.; Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures for 1859, P. 203; Wieseler in Herzog,2 1. PP. 87-89; and the reff. in Thayer’s Grimm under Λυσανίας.
The “International Critical Commentary” reporting on Luke’s supposed mistake, recorded that “such a mistake is very improbable; and the only difficulty about Luke’s statement is that we have no indisputable evidence of this tetrarch Lysanias.” Thus, it is pure assumption that no man by this name ever reigned in that vicinity.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
The historical Pontius Pilate from actual Roman records, including your beloved Josephus, depicts him as a cruel, arrogant and barbaric ruler. Somebody that only listens to himself and, if he really musts, to his superiors. Also as someone who doesn't care about Jews at all.

The bible in contrast depicts him as indecisive and as someone who had his mind changed by a mob of Jews.
The man described in the bible does not at all match the man we know from actual history and Roman records.

The Pontius Pilate we know from history, wouldn't change his ruling because a mob (he doesn't even like) demanded it. Instead, he would have more likely ordered a cruel beat-down of that mob.

Sounds like skeptic apologetics which I have heard before from other skeptics. Why can't you just take the Bible record as further information about Pontius Pilate and his desire not to cause trouble from the Jews at the Passover when probably many thousands of them were visiting Jerusalem. And his desire not to have any bad reports about him from the Jews going back to Rome.
John 19:11Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
12From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.”
13When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
15But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?”
The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”
16Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led Him away.

Why is it always "The Bible is wrong unless it is supported by outside reports".?
I wonder if it is something about skeptics and the Bible. The Bible certainly has a hard time passing the test of being historical in any way it seems. A book of lies from start to finish it seems. It is war on the Bible, a war of ++++ slinging to see how much sticks.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
All humans are human.

Human says mutual as equal. Mutual is not exactly equal. Why it's not equals in science.

Just in that review cause and effect isn't reality. Mutuality.

So if you state from one came two.

You look into creation...you see a sun.
You see a planet.

Yet they sit in one position within space.

Hence cause effect says not mutual and not equal. It cannot be the creator.

Creator a base status that had always existed. Still existed.

Human reason we have free movement free will. We do not exist held as a body type one in mass.

Therefore we have examples to think upon.

Yet we are only baby humans.

The first and origin mutual human pair our parent owns their story.

To believe their story is to use and know their memories.

Which stated they had been in and with the original creator and left the body as earths heavens became dense.

Natural evolution in space stated a heavens began as a release from the planet. Stretched cooling. Thin.

Density a cause owning an effect pushed onto the eternal...where spirit lived had always existed.

Pushed their body by density to move unnaturally. When the heavens thinned cooled...it released spirt out. Owning no control in their body to stop the release.

Cause and effect.

Any theist just a human said an origin type had to exist first that changed. As variance in created creation proves it had ...meaning the body had owned a pre ability to alter within itself.

Proven.

We knew we came from spirit but as our human parent type. As their babies we only owned our existence by their human sex.

Sex as an act. Physical. Then sex as a man or woman as type. Inferred by our thoughts.

As animals and nature proves that we share identifiable similarities. Then we knew our type of living life came from somewhere else.

As end meant was created and present. Which any mass by type already owned.

So if I say science was unnatural I would prove by causes it is.

As it was science that changed biology that then began medical science. Medical science studies are now inferred by occult machine theists. Used also in machine theories.

So we knew science was evil. As nature had supplied all remedies first. And humans were the practitioner.

Does not make common sense today. To claim human science by human thought preceded created creation.

Not until you say I never belonged...I came from a higher place would you agree that to understand what you never were.... was to have come from the place of what it once was.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No gospels were written during a time when eyewitnesses could have still been alive.
And even if it were the case (it isn't), that wouldn't do either, as that wouldn't account for independent sources.

I can give you thousands of "eyewitnesses" of alien abduction. People that are still alive TODAY which you could go an talk to. People so sure of their claims that they even pass lie detector tests.

But I gather that you wouldn't believe that they were actually abducted by aliens.
The reason is simple. "eyewitness testimony" simply is not reliable enough to accept such extra-ordinary claims. Such claims require independent, corroborating evidence. In this case, it would require extra-biblical evidence. There isn't any.

That is no more than sceptic speculation about when the gospels were written. The presumption is that prophecy is not true and so the gospels had to be written after 70AD.
All we know is that the gospels themselves have no authors attached, but there is internal evidence for the authors and external evidence in the form of traditions that were passed down in the church. There is also internal evidence for the dating before 70AD.
But sceptic naturalistic presumption is a type of **** slinging that sceptics do and then publish Biblical history books based on those anti God presumptions.
Then people read the books and say "look according to historians the Bible is lies".


First, these are not facts.
It is not a historical fact that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus. There are no independent records of such at all.

However, Pilate ordered the execution of MANY people for all kinds of reasons. I have no problem accepting that the bible myth was build around the execution of one of those people. Or even several of those people where multiple actual stories were merged into one mythical story.

The religion obviously began in some way. I don't think any religion is invented in a vacuum.
Surely there were events, people, etc that served as the inspiration for it.

Sceptics want independent records and when they get them they say these aren't enough,,,,,,,,,, and that is just to the basics like Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate. What is wrong with Josephus or Tacitus?
Is it any wonder that some sceptics actually claim forthrightly that Jesus did not exist?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, my beloved Josephus, when read carefully, provides us with corroborating evidence that makes your unfounded claims seem foolish.

Here is what Josephus actually says about Pontius Pilate:
'But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter-quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws, So he introduced Caesar's effiges, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were want to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought these images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night-time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days, that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar..[to abbreviate the next, Pilate planned to strike the people who complained]...But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their deaths very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea.'

Now, if l, or anyone else, had accepted your version of events, it would leave us thinking that Pilate always acted in a cruel and malicious manner. But even a cruel man has the capacity for some feeling, and the evidence from Josephus is that Pilate was capable of giving in to the demands made by a resolute people whose only request was that they be able to follow the laws of their God.
"my version" is really the actual scholar historians' version.

There is consensus among historical academia that the Pontius Pilate depicted in the bible does not match the Pontius Pilate depicted in historical records.
Why didn't you quote the part where he used Temple treasury to build an aquaduct, after which protests broke out. What he did next was dress up his soldiers in civilian cloths and had them mengle in the crowd, after which they took out the weapons hidden in their clothes on his signal and started a cruel beat-down to the death.

Note also that the bible story is dealing with the execution of what to him would have been in an insignificant jew.


Why Did Pontius Pilate Have Jesus Executed? - HISTORY

Contrary to the depiction of Pilate as a merciless ruler by Philo and Josephus, all four Gospels portray him as a vacillating judge. According to the Gospel of Mark, Pilate came to the defense of Jesus before yielding to the desire of the crowd.

But Mark had an ulterior agenda, notes Patterson, since he wrote the Gospel in the midst of the failed Jewish Revolt against Roman rule between 66 and 70 A.D., while the Christian sect was undergoing a bitter break with Judaism and seeking to attract Roman converts.

“Mark’s purpose is not really historical,” Patterson says. “It’s to cast the Jewish War in a particular light. Mark blamed the Jewish rulers in Jerusalem for its destruction [during the rebellion] because the high priests and officials rejected Jesus when he had come to the city. Mark’s telling of the story of the trial of Jesus is less about Pilate and more about shifting the blame to the Jewish leaders.”
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Top of the post. 4th time I bring it to your attention.
I'm not an expert in DNA sequencing, but when researching this claim, l came across this:
'Reporting their results in the scientific journal Cell, the team from Hebrew University in Jerusalem submitted their findings after studying the DNA from bones of 73 individuals found at five Canaanite sites across Israel and Jordan, then comparing them to 20 from four other sites, which had already been studied.'

The article goes on to say that Canaanite DNA can be found in many Jews and Arabs. So, what is that meant to prove?

How do you reach the conclusion that the Israelite invasion of Canaan never took place? The Hebrew University, which conducted the research, certainly did not reach this conclusion!
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Sounds like skeptic apologetics which I have heard before from other skeptics.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "skeptics". I have a rough idea though.
And I can only tell you that you are wrong.

This is not "skeptic apologetics". It rather is "academic historian consensus".


Why can't you just take the Bible record as further information about Pontius Pilate


For the same reason that I can't take Russian State Media as further information for what is actually happening in Ukraine. Or when they say that Zelensky is really a neo-nazi.

Why is it always "The Bible is wrong unless it is supported by outside reports".?

It rather is "there's no reason to think it is right unless supported by extra-biblical evidence"

Subtle, yet important, difference.

I wonder if it is something about skeptics and the Bible.

No.

It's just about the bible having an agenda and incentive to present a specific picture of certain events.

I'ld also accept claims by Russian state media if they were corroborated by sources that aren't under the control of Russians.

Without such, one should be careful about simply accepting it at face value.

The Bible certainly has a hard time passing the test of being historical in any way it seems. A book of lies from start to finish it seems. It is war on the Bible, a war of ++++ slinging to see how much sticks.

Consider how you think about the Quran, the bagavad ghita, the iliad,...
Do you wage a "war" on those books?

Or is it rather just a case of you requiring additional evidence other then the book claiming whatever they claim, in order to feel justified in accepting them?

Why don't you take the Quran's word for it when it says that an angel appeared to mohammed in a cave to dictate the divine message of the quran, for example?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
There is consensus among historical academia that the Pontius Pilate depicted in the bible does not match the Pontius Pilate depicted in historical records.
There is little point in making sweeping claims if you cannot back them up with evidence.

I have gone to the trouble of quoting from Josephus, providing an independent and respected source as my evidence.

As regards the DNA, can you explain to me how samples of Canaanite DNA, appearing in some modern day Jews and Arabs, leads us to the conclusion that the invasion of Canaan by the lsraelites never took place?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That is no more than sceptic speculation about when the gospels were written.

Again, no.
This is just historical science.
This is the consensus of scholars who study this stuff. Many of which, btw, aren't even atheists but christians.

Go complain to them.


The presumption is that prophecy is not true and so the gospels had to be written after 70AD.

No. It's just based on the historical facts.
You are projecting. Your presumption is that it is all true and therefor it must be like you already believe it to be - eventhough the evidence paints a different picture.

Funny how you falsely accuse others of mistakes you yourself are making.

Sceptics want independent records and when they get them they say these aren't enough

Such as?

,,,,,,,,,, and that is just to the basics like Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate. What is wrong with Josephus or Tacitus?

There's nothing wrong with it.
It's those records that present a different picture of Pilate then the bible does.
This is well known in the world of historical scholarship.

Take everything we know about Pilate from conventional history (ie, all sources except the bible) and then put that next to the bible. What we get from the bible is a serious character break.

And historians, like in the link I shared, also explain why that is.
It's because Mark isn't written to be historical. It is instead written with an agenda in mind, to paint a specific picture. To put stuff in a specific pre-determined light. Not necessarily to reflect the actual truth.

Is it any wonder that some sceptics actually claim forthrightly that Jesus did not exist?

Please stop with that nonsense already. First, I haven't made that claim. Second, this stuff is what historians present, not "skeptics". Many of these historians are even christians themselves.

As for a historical Jesus... we actually do not know if there was such a person.
I figure chances are quite high a historical Jesus existed. Like I said, I don't think religions like that form in a vacuum. Something inspired it. A historical Jesus, or in fact even several people who through story telling and "mythifying" were merged into one person and deified.

I think that's a reasonable stance to take.
But we don't know, because there is zero extra biblical evidence for this.

But again, I think it stands to reason and I have no problem at all with assuming it to be the case.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Contrary to the depiction of Pilate as a merciless ruler by Philo and Josephus, all four Gospels portray him as a vacillating judge.
From the passage l quoted, it is clear that Josephus did not depict Pilate as a merciless ruler. Had Pilate been merciless, he would have killed the unarmed Jews who protested against his introduction of the Roman standards into Jerusalem. Instead, he relented and took the ensigns back to Caesarea.

Both the Gospels and Josephus depict Pilate as a procurator who is 'learning on the job'. He makes mistakes but is prepared to address those mistakes to ensure peace and order. He realised that he needed the Jewish people to be acquiescent towards Roman rule, not actively rebellious, like the zealots. This could not be achieved without making compromises.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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.

Look, Redemptionsong. I don't doubt John the Baptist, Jesus and James the Just being real historical people.

Don't get me wrong, Redemptionsong, I used to be believer in the bible, and didn't doubt or question the Bible from the age of 15, when my sister gave me my first bible to when I was 34 in 2000.

During that that time, I believed in the stories in both Old & New Testaments, but I didn't have any experience with literary criticism and literary analysis.

I acquire these skills, when I started creation of my website - Timeless Myths (www.timelessmyths.com) in 1999, where I learned to understand and interpret ancient and medieval literature, and analyzing texts, verifying sources. I did a lot of reading and researching literature from 1999 to 2006.

I may sound "digressing", but the point that verifying sources, analysis literature can be apply to religious literature like scriptures, and to historical texts and inscriptions.

It was 2000, that I began to see the Bible differently, especially when I looked deeper at the gospel narratives on Jesus' birth that may see the flaws in NT interpretations of the "signs" (eg Matthew 1:23 cf Isaiah 7:14-17), and historical inaccuracies of both histories of Judaea and Rome.

You only speak of superficial connections between the Bible and history, but when I dig deeper into both, I see that NT narratives aren’t consistent with history of the Jews and history of Rome.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Look, Redemptionsong. I don't doubt John the Baptist, Jesus and James the Just being real historical people.

Don't get me wrong, Redemptionsong, I used to be believer in the bible, and didn't doubt or question the Bible from the age of 15, when my sister gave me my first bible to when I was 34 in 2000.

During that that time, I believed in the stories in both Old & New Testaments, but I didn't have any experience with literary criticism and literary analysis.

I acquire these skills, when I started creation of my website - Timeless Myths (www.timelessmyths.com) in 1999, where I learned to understand and interpret ancient and medieval literature, and analyzing texts, verifying sources. I did a lot of reading and researching literature from 1999 to 2006.

I may sound "digressing", but the point that verifying sources, analysis literature can be apply to religious literature like scriptures, and to historical texts and inscriptions.

It was 2000, that I began to see the Bible differently, especially when I looked deeper at the gospel narratives on Jesus' birth that may see the flaws in NT interpretations of the "signs" (eg Matthew 1:23 cf Isaiah 7:14-17), and historical inaccuracies of both histories of Judaea and Rome.

You only speak of superficial connections between the Bible and history, but when I dig deeper into both, I see that NT narratives aren’t consistent with history of the Jews and history of Rome.
I happen to disagree with your conclusions, and am happy to look at any of the issues of inconsistency that you raise.

I often hear from people who say, 'l was a Christian but...', and l immediately think that there's something amiss. If a person really knows Christ, it means that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts and has become a living reality that cannot be denied.

Let me hear your testimony. Tell me when you were 'born again' and how the Holy Spirit became a reality to you.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I happen to disagree with your conclusions, and am happy to look at any of the issues of inconsistency that you raise.

I have already given you many examples of the Bible unreliability in regards to history, in my previous posts.

That you want me to raise more issues, clearly demonstrate that you haven’t addressed points from my previous replies or you don’t understand them.
 
Top