outhouse
Atheistically
Well your wrong again.
No one is using the book to prove itself.
I am asking you to explain why Paul and Tim and other memebers of his community, wrote what they did????????????
-
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!
Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Well your wrong again.
No one is using the book to prove itself.
I am asking you to explain why Paul and Tim and other memebers of his community, wrote what they did????????????
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Because they didn't know anything about a contemporary, crucified man named Jesus.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well your wrong again.
No one is using the book to prove itself.
I am asking you to explain why Paul and Tim and other memebers of his community, wrote what they did????????????
Your not making sense, and keep posting face palms instead of ever actually engaging on point. I'll leave you to repeat yourself ad naseum to somebody else.
Why you think I need to 'explain' anything recorded in scripture, I can't imagine, I find it hard to believe it is possible that anybody could be deluded enough to actually imagine that somebody not having an alternative explanation you find satisfying is somehow a substitute for evidence.
Paul claims to have gone to the third heaven to get important information so maybe that is what Paul said that has outhouse convinced.
What you are claiming is far too vague. Be specific, quote exactly what these two historians say that has you convinced.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Buddy, just put up or shut up.
For all your whining, whinging pontificating and face palming - you have yet to identify enough extra biblical evidence for the crucifixion to fill a short sentence, let alone make for a solid case.
I am not arguing for historical Jesus theory nor for mythical Jesus theory because I don't know and neither do you.
Why do I need a so called replacement theory for a theory that does not hold up to scrutiny?
It appears to me that proponents of an historical Jesus theory have their work cut out for them beginning with the crucifixion, something they claim is a slam dunk.
Some Christ myth theory is off too but that in and of itself does not make historical Jesus theory any more credible.
outhouse
Atheistically
:biglaugh:
Quit avoiding the questions. Paul is evidence, that evidence needs to be explained.
The current explanation is that Paul wrote about a martyred Galilean who was crucified at Passover that generated mythology in theology. This new mythology competed against the divinity of the Emperor who first held the title "son of god".
Your silence, not even having an idea let alone being able to imagine why Paul wrote what he did, SPEAKS VOLUMES.
outhouse
Atheistically
I don't need to supply anything extra biblical.
You fail to realize the NT is a compilation of multiple sources of evidence.
Evidence YOU don't get to hand waive away.
Josephus is just a can of worms, and nothing credible enough to use. Start another thread on that if you wish.
outhouse
Atheistically
Maybe one day you will learn that a scholars job, is to explain the evidence before them.
History cannot be recreated, but different aspects can be made regarding plausibility.
Have you ever listened to a single professor?
Have you taken a college class on this topic?
Or are you happy staying ignorant to a topic you seem to show some interest in???
History cannot be recreated, but different aspects can be made regarding plausibility.
Have you ever listened to a single professor?
Have you taken a college class on this topic?
Or are you happy staying ignorant to a topic you seem to show some interest in???
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What silence? How many times do I need to repeat to you that it is EXTRA BIBLICAL evidence that you need?
Nobody needs to 'explain' the gospels. YOU ARE BEING ASKED FOR EXTRA BIBLICAL EVIDENCE. So far you have enough to write one short sentence.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
If you want to esteblish tue historicity of anything in the bible you need extra biblical sources. This thread is not about your faith in the bible, it is about historicity - and for that you need extra biblical sources,
No, I am well aware of that fact. Multiple sources were combined into the NT.
I think that is the fifth time you have said that. I am not 'hand waving' anything away. I am seeking the extra biblical evidence to confirm the historicity of the NT.
Bingo!!!!!!
Yahoooooo......YES! You finally got it! Absolutely, Josephus is a can of worms.
So other than Josephus you have Tacitus - and then what?
Of course you don't, you just have to read The Bible as if Jesus is historical, the same thing true believers have been doing since the fourth century.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Don't DEBATE what you don't have a clue about.
outhouse
Atheistically
Well good for you! You just keep on seeking. It is your personal issue not mine.
Meanwhile credible historians will do it there way, and use the evidence they have.
YOU have been told, YOU don't get to dictate what historians use as evidence .
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well good for you! You just keep on seeking. It is your personal issue not mine.
Meanwhile credible historians will do it there way, and use the evidence they have.
YOU have been told, YOU don't get to dictate what historians use as evidence .
Grow up buddy. I have a degree in history, I know more about this topic than you do.
What extra biblical evidence are these nameless historians relying on? So far you just keep dodging the bit where you identify any.