Jack the Bodiless

...They did?

So, all the Jews "back then" converted to Christianity. And the same "flavor" of Christianity too: there were no gnostics, for instance.
...Fascinating.

Also in the news: the Angel Moroni has approved the Smithsonian's new display case for the golden tablets of the Book of Mormon, and Apollo has hired a Greek software company to make the Oracle of Delphi available online.

Julian

The people who said that didn't live 'back then,' they lived considerably later. They didn't live any closer to those times than you do to the Napoleonic times or even later, surely you will not claim that you are in a position to know about those times because of your 'temporal proximity?'
You have no idea what I know or don't know about history. I suspect that I know considerable amount more than you, judging from your comments.

For example: When Jesus prays in the Gethesemane how did the gospel writer know what Jesus said? The disciples weren't near him and were asleep, besides. Now, ancient historians frequently placed speeches in the mouths of famous people if they didn't have direct knowledge of what was said, but that would make it fiction, which you claim it isn't. I suspect that you will claim that god revealed to the gospel writer what was said but again such a claim is neither scholarly nor can it be supported with any evidence, it is merely an assertion.
The claim isn't absurd, only your repeated denial. I have read the NT writings. Many times. I currently read them every day, in critical editions, in Greek. You say, again, 'people who lived then' yet cannot tell me who any of them were.
None of the people you list were eyewitnesses nor claimed to be. Nor did they have any first hand evidence of the veracity of the gospels. All they had was a claim to tradition. Why don't you try some other names?
Credible but what standards? Certainly not modern standards but possibly by ancient standards. Unfortunately, we live in modern times and must subject the gospels to the more rigorous standards of our time. As shown in the Gethsemane example above they could not be accurate unless divine revelation was appealed to, which you will never get away with in a scholarly manner.
It would take too long to educate you here. You do realize that there were innumerable sects right from the beginning, right?
Please show me some evidence for divine revelation. Any evidence and then I will take it seriously. By evidence, I mean proper evidence, not some philosophical religious peripatetic blurb.
What was he referring to, in your mind? He does mention a logia. He does mention a gospel in hebrew/aramaic. What do you think he is talking about?
As was pointed out by Alf earlier, Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinius didn't become governor until 6CE. You have a ten year gap to explain here. Before you roll out your apologetics, just make sure that they are stronger than the evidence here:http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html
Really? You must be reading an entirely different gospel then. Mark is filled with attacks on the disciples, especially Peter.

8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

and on and on and on...
Really? How about some evidence that is modern and not by Wyatt? I have lots of evidence against both events. Like, real evidence.
And it may not be. There is no evidence for or against. Hence, baseless conjecture.
Why don't you start here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117382
There you go again. You have yet to prove that they were eyewitnesses. Show some evidence first, and then make the claim. And don't just say that there were some people back then who knew so therefore... Real evidence.
I wonder why the bible keeps changing then, every time a new critical edition comes out and we find more papyrus fragments. The Nestle-Aland text is now in its 27th edition and the text keeps changing. There is a whole field of study, called textual criticism, that is concerned with reconstructing the original texts. They seem to disagree with you that we know the originals.
That comment is just too laughably ignorant to even comment on.

Some open-minded study would do you a world of good. You know, we do have a few christians who post here and manage to come across as knowledgable and scholarly. You should look to their examples but I suspect that you would consider them 'no true christians.'

Julian

jakejonesiv

No, you aren't going to wiggle off the hook that easily. What you think isn't evidence, you have only offered unsupported conjecture.

The Bible does not define itself. Nowhere does "God" itemize the usual sixty-six books that are included in the Bible. This was the result of a long and haphazard process. The Bible was compiled by man, not God. There is not even agreement on the "Old Testament" writings. Consider the Pseudographa. Augustine included the Book of Wisdom as part of the Canon and held that the Septuagint or Greek text of the O.T. was inspired, not the Hebrew!

And things only get worse with the so-called "New Testament."

Let's take II Peter as an example. It is not mentioned by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, or the Muratorian Canon. it is for the first time mentioned by Origen, who says it is contested. It is listed by Eusebius among the antilegomena. Before the fourth century, it was either unknown not recognized as canonical.
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
So come on aChristian, shouldn't you admit that the pseudonymity of 2 Peter? 2 Peter 1:16 is a flat out lie.

Were the following books known to be "inspired" as soon as they were penned?

Tobit (accepted by Catholics, but not Protestants)
Judith (accepted by Catholics, but not Protestants)
Wisdom of Solomon (in Muratorian Canon) (accepted by Catholics, but not Protestants)
Ecclesiasticus (accepted by Catholics, but not Protestants)
Baruch (accepted by Catholics, but not Protestants)
1 Maccabees (accepted by Catholics, but not Protestants)
2 Maccabees (accepted by Catholics, but not Protestants)
1 Enoch (Tertullian)
Philemon (not in Irenaeus)
Hebrews (not in Muratorian Canon, not in Irenaeus)
James (not in Muratorian Canon, not in Irenaeus, opposed by Luther)
1 Peter (not in Muratorian Canon)
2 Peter (see above)
2 John (not in Irenaeus)
3 John (not in Irenaeus)
Jude (not in Irenaeus)
Shepard of Hermas (Clement of Alexandria)
Didache (Athanasius, Didascalia
Revelation (Eusebius was no fan)
Apocalypse of Peter (In Muratorian Canon)
Epistle of Barnabas (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria)
Gospel according to the Hebrews (Clement of Alexandria)
Gospel according to the Egyptians (Clement of Alexandria)


The earliest NT canon was collected by Marcion. This included a shorter (and arguably earlier) version of the Pauline epistles (except for the Pastorals) called the Apostolicon and one gospel which corresponds to shorter version of GLuke. If you can document a NT canon earlier than this, please do so.

Come on aChrsitian, why don't you just say the Holy Ghost tells Christians (but which Christians???) what is inspired. That way you can retreat into supernaturalism, and give up all pretense of doing history.

Jake Jones IV

aChristian

We have Eusebius who had access to an excellent library, quoting Polycarp, who knew John. He also quotes Papias, who probably also knew John. Since he knew John, he also knew many other Christians of the time some of whom were no doubt either eyewitnesses themselves or knew eyewitnesses personally and knew they were credible. I have read Eusebius and other church fathers. They are not infallible, but are very credible when used to determine how we got the NT. There is plenty of evidence that the gospels accurately record what happened. If you take the time to research some good conservative scholars, you will find this to be true. I think that you have to accept your position on blind faith. My position is backed up by the facts.

aChristian

Ever heard of sedimentary rock?

There is archaeological evidence supporting the Biblical account. However, after you have establish the historicity of the NT and thus the fact that Jesus is God, his stamp of approval on the OT trumps everything else.

Ancient kings didn't revel in stories of how their armies lost battles. The archaeology shows no such thing.

I've never heard of Ron Wyatt. The evidence is there if you take the time to look at it.

aChristian

God performed a miracle.

aChristian

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible. It is based in history. Paul said that if the historical fact of the resurrection is not true, our faith is in vain. He also wrote that the scripture was divinely inspired. The belief that the scripture is from God and completely reliable is found throughout the Bible and obvious in the writings of the church fathers. I wouldn't want to believe in a theological system claiming to be from god, if that god can't get his history or science right. If he can't get those right, why would I believe him on the more serious matters?

aChristian

I'll stick with the 4 B.C. to 2 B.C. date until you come up with some better evidence otherwise.
If you are really interested in the historical basis for this you can go to some good Christian websites and books. One quote that sheds some light on the matter is at www.biblehistory.net. I'll quote a section of it for you.

For many years, critics of those who believe the bible to be 100% accurate, used a passage found in the bible to point out an apparent historical error.
Luke 2:1-2 states: "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria."
Since the bible states that Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great who died in the spring of 4 B.C., critics claimed that the Bible was in error, since history records that Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria until 6 A.D.
The Roman historian Tertullian also recorded that Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria from 9 to 6 B.C. during the first census, not Quirinius.

But recently, confirmation that Quirinius was in Syria during the first Roman census taken between 8 B.C. and 5 B.C. has been found.
First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they match up with the bible.
The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the gospel:
"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out . . . "
Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:
"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."
It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the gospel account.
Two well-respected leaders from the early church, Justin and Tertullian, also believed that a record of the census, along with the registration of Joseph and Mary could be found in official documents from the reign of Augustus Caesar. In their writings they mention that if anyone were to question the Lord’s virgin birth they should go and checkout the Roman state records for themselves.

And as for Quirinius being the governor of Syria during this census, it is worth noting that the Bible never calls him the governor, at least the New King James Version doesn't. It says he was governing in Syria. And we know that Quirinius was indeed governing in some capacity in this region at this time.
Records also indicate that Quirinius was no minor figure in Roman politics. His name is mentioned in Res Gestae - The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus placing him as consul as early as 12 B.C.
The Roman historian Tacitus also mentions that Quirinius was appointed by Augustus to be an advisor to his young son Caius Caesar in Armenia well before the census of 6 A.D. - Caius was sent to administer Syria in 1 A.D. and was wounded in nearby Armenia in 3 A.D. Evidently, Augustus wanted someone who was experienced in previously administering the region to advise his son. Who better then Quirinius.
The first century historian Josephus also mentions that Quirinius became governor later on in 6 A.D.: He wrote:
"Quirinius, a Roman senator who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them all until he had become consul, was appointed governor of Syria by Caesar and was given the task of assessing property there and in Judea."
So who was in charge as the assessor of property in Judea during the first census? Just as the bible had said all along, Quirinius.

This is just a starting point. There is more information at other websites giving different suggestions if you are interested.

aChristian

No, just a lot of the eyewitnesses. Some refused to believe no matter what the evidence and were forced to write that Jesus did miracles by the power of the devil. They couldn't deny the miracles, so they had to come up with some explanation to the masses of people who had seen them.

The gnostics weren't Christians. If you read the church history and some of the NT letters you will see that the people who knew Jesus and witnessed his miracle and resurrection rejected the gnostics ideas. The gnostics contradicted the words of the Messiah who they had seen rise from the dead.

I would need to see the evidence before I believed this. God has warned us about phonies and told us to check out claims carefully.

Godless Wonder

Yes. And it does not support a global flood at all. It refutes a global flood. E.g: Glenn Morton, a Christian, wrote this: The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood