Jim Larmore

This is so typical of Biblical critics work on the Bible. You know if they spent as much time trying to read the Bible for its message rather than looking for ways to invalidate it maybe they would see a lot of harmony and synopsis in it. The human mind can rationalize anything into obscurity or invalidation to suit its needs for comfort and affinity. The truth is the truth and if any literature was scrutinized to the extent the scriptures were I'd doubt any would be accepted as authentic.
I don't think so at least not by the scholars who truely seek for the truth.
I'd like to see some of the ancient historical writings by Tacitus and others put to the scrutiny they put the Bible too.

Jim Larmore

It was never proven as incorrect. The posters invalidating what I posted just refused to see the truth of the textual and historical evidence I presented. This is so typical of this forum. You guys claim a victory over something you didn't win on at all.

I never said it did you guys said that. You guys seem to thrive on confusion. That kinda tells me what source drives your searches and posts. This thing is not that way at all unless you try to make it that way. The 1260 year prophecy is given 7 times in Daniel and Revelation and fits exactly the period of the dark ages from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D when the pope ascended control of Rome and became a serious persecuting power, he was dethroned by Napolean's general Berthier 1260 years later exactly on time like the Bible said he would. This is all very historical and completely verifiable.

I'm not here to start another thread, your the one who brought all of this other stuff up.

Jack the Bodiless

You presented two "propehcies", one of which missed by either 2 years or 9 years (depending on which "year" you used), and the other missed by 18 years (plus all the other problems, such as the wrong number of "horns" on the beast, and the dubious eligibility of the relevant events).

Neither was "exactly correct".

And, yes, YOU mentioned "fulfilled prophecies" as a reason to believe, and specifically brought up the "1260 years" nonsense again.

Jim Larmore

I have read some of these claims about the gospels before but there are just as many other historical accounts that they were authentic many of which come from manuscripts from Nero's diarys and some of the passages by Tacitus. Like I said you could do this to many other historical documents as old as Biblical manuscripts and come to the same conclusion. Why , for one thing there wasn't much writing going on back then. Much of the population was illiterate. Papyrus and skins for writings were very expensive and so the amount of verifiable documents to support any writing is practically missing. For instance much of the historical writings of Josephus is not backed up by any other document but you don't see a barrage of critics invalidating all of his writings. The ones they like to invalidate are the ones that support apologetic scholars.

Your going to have to come up with more evidence than that to invalidate the accounts of the Gospels. Unless like I said you want to do the same thing to all other ancient historical manuscripts.

Jim Larmore

Jack you are totally confused by all the stuff others post. The 1260 prophecy and the 69 week prophecy both hit exactly like I said they did. You or others like you are the ones who made a mess of the figures.

Jack the Bodiless

Have you actually read that thread?

How could the gospel authors have made so many mistakes, if they were who they were supposed to be? Especially the ones that demonstrate ignorance of the local geography?

And do you think I don't know that your "supporting evidence" consists only of passing mentions of the existence of the Christian religion?

Again, why are we having such a discussion when we've both been here for years?

Jack the Bodiless

Again, this is simply not true, as anyone can see.

You never did explain why you shifted the date that Tiberius became Emperor, or changed the length of your "years" midway through your calculations.

Will you now return to that thread and explain yourself?

Jim Larmore

You need to read some commentaries outside of critical philosophies and then you would understand why I am saying what I do about all of this. Your rationalization falls in line with a critics view and thats ok if thats what you choose, but there is ample evidence on the other side of the fence to support the apologetics view as well.

And in anwer to your question of " do you think I don't know that your supporting evidence consists only of passing mentions of the existence of the christian religion?

Well passing or what ever you call it, Nero said specifically he would kill anyone who claimed to be a christian and then went on to say they held onto their beliefs and went to their deaths because of the gospel account of the historical Jesus. The only way they could have gotten this informtion was thru the gospels and the epistles of Paul. Theres more to support this too in other historical writings.

Lets look at a statement from
www.scripturessay.com/cev5.html

In these four historical narratives, we find the evidence for the resurrection which centers upon the burial tomb. The fact that thousands, who had participated in the events described in these books, were still alive and had become believers and had received the gospels is excellent testimony to their factuality. They have been verified by the same testing methods used to verify the classical histories. Our appeal to them for the real facts in the case is at least as reliable as an appeal to any Greek, Roman, or Jewish writing from that same period. It is not reason's function to determine whether the claim is believable or not before the evidence has come in. When the evidence is trustworthy, it is not difficult to reach a believing conclusion even though it embraces a line of reasoning which extends to the supernatural. No truly objective statement of finality can be honestly pronounced on the reality of the resurrection until the evidence which has been made available to us has been considered. Remember that both archaeology and first century contemporary documents have reflected on the statements in the gospels and have corroborated their historical accuracy so that when we turn to them for the resurrection evidence, we are turning to facts, not to fiction.


Then theres this evidence from the good old internet:

Historical Jesus: The Unchanging Reality of the New Testament Record
<edited by mod to add URL, quote box. Please include your source when you copy and paste. Thank you.>

Theres a lot of evidence beyond this to support the accuracy of the gospels and the Bible in general.

John A. Broussard

Jim has hit on an important element, here. A science/skeptically-oriented reader looks at documents which purport to represent fact in a very different way then the converted do. She/he wants to know what's right about it and what's wrong.

Should s/s read a scientific paper looking for harmony and synopsis they'd be a laughingstock.

On the other hand, a s/s should be able to read a poem for harmony and synopsis, but there's no claim (ordinarily) that the material is factual.

The conclusion can only be that the bible is either a document claiming a factual basis--in which case analysis, dissection, questioning by s/s is inevitable and very desirable, or it's poetry, and then Jim's right. Enjoy, don't analyze.

Jim Larmore

I don't have too much trouble with a skeptical approach to things since I am by training and philosophy a scientist. The problem I have is the way the skeptical approach dissects and invalidates the Bible in ways it would never do to other writings. In other words whats good for the goose is good for the gander. For instance I've already mentioned an issue I have a problem with like writing style. You can't expect a human being who possess a dynamic brain and associated dynamic thought patterns to maintain a exactly rigid style in the way he expresses himself over a long rhetorical or literary assemblage.

I was looking at some letters not too long ago that I wrote to my wife when I as in Viet Nam. I could hardly believe it was me who was writing the passages I was reading but I know it was me. Like I said before writing style can change within a single letter of a very few pages let alone an entire book of the Bible.

There are many other skeptical issues that don't seem to find there way into the analysis of other writings either.