Iasion

It's odd -

When the existance of Jesus is brought up, Christian apologists frequently jump to the subject of evolution (often along with abiogenesis and the Big Bang, 3 subjects they usually can't tell apart.)

As if evolution and Jesus' existance had something in common.


Iasion

Sauron

Nonsense. We've examined the evidence. It doesn't support the claims you are making.

But neither one is extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Did you miss the point where I also told you that Nicaea and Constantine both came 300 years afterwards?

Pointing out that some group of religious people held a conference is not proof for the claims of that religion.

Nonsense. Lots of conferences have been held about non-historical people.

What about it? Some European monk centuries afterwards decided to divide time according to his religion. It does not prove that Christ existed.

When you look at history, like Constantine and the Niceen Creed then you have to actually LOOK at it, b/c stuff like that happened.
[/quote]
But none of is extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Christ.

No, it's just unknown to you -- but as we've seen, your exposure to the material on this topic is pretty shallow.

The previous sites you posted also didn't hold up -- I thought we already discussed that, and you admitted it. Are you changing your mind now?

Iasion

Greetings,

Nonsense.

Here are the commonly accepted dates, from Peter Kirby :

50-90 Signs Gospel
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
90-120 Gospel of John
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
130-170 Gospel of Judas
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180 Gospel of Truth
180-250 Gospel of Philip


Note the big four are NOT dated to 55CE.

Note many OTHER Gospels from around the same period as the canonical 4.

Note these other Gospels are NOT all from after 300CE.


Iasion

Sauron

To be more precise: some people make that claim about the bible.

Not necessarily true. There is no evidence for Noah, Moses, etc. Writing down oral tradition doesn't prove that the oral tradition is *correct*.

The problem is that you are assuming your conclusion. I hope you know what that means. Until you prove that God created stars, you can hardly use God as part of your argument.

The origins of humanity are explained by human evolution.

Which does not hold up when actual archaeologists look at it. How surprising.

Sauron

It is not "common knowledge", nor is it scientifically accurate.

But you're ignorant of science and evolution, so you're hardly in a position to tell what is sound, or what is not sound.

Says who?

1. Not quite true; they have been discussed as much as you have brought them up.

2. The alleged subject is extra biblical evidence for Jesus anyhow, so in that context it isn't surprising that the OT is not a center of discussion.

The fact that something got copied a lot does not prove it was true. In fact, it doesn't even prove that the copies are free of errors.

Uh, wrong.

The bible record vs. archaeology is pretty mediocre, actually.

None that I am aware of. I'd ask you for some proof, but we all know that I'd be wasting my breath.

RGD

No, the point is that you did not supply evidence. We can't even discuss your 'argument' until you've made one - and you haven't, as yet.

You have offered evidence that various people at various points in the past believed that Christ was a real man/God.

That is NOT the same as evidence that Christ was a real man/God.

Evidence for a belief is NOT evidence that the belief is a correct one - that's why nobody has bothered yet, because you haven't presented anything yet.

Sauron

Uh, wrong.

Or through the bottom and sides, when it foundered due to its excessive size.

Except no such ark ever existed.

Probably because there are trees there.

TomboyMom

If you call asking for an answer to a question acting like a child. Because they were convicted criminals. It was part of their punishment. Yes, in fact they did. No, actually they weren't. It is better to learn about something before making assertions about it; makes you look less ignorant.
Actually many historians dispute it, and it is certainly up for debate.

TomboyMom

Got this funny hangup on the truth. one: This is an assertion. We don't know you. Here on IIDB you have to provide evidence in support of your assertions; we don't accept them on blind faith. If you want to show that the bible is historically accurate, provide some evidence. 2 warnings though: (1) It's a bit broad. Try narrowing it down a little. (2) The last person who tried ran away without coming up with a shred of evidence in support of the assertion that history validates biblical claims.

TomboyMom

one: Most scholars do accept that there was a man by this name, who bears only a sketchy resemblance to Christ. However, they do not come to this conclusion because of non-biblical historical references to him, because they are few, paltry, vague and forged.