Freethought & Rationalism Archive

meforevidence · 05-20-2005, 06:56 AM

Evidences of Jesus and the Validity of the Gospels

Today Christians live in an age where we are not simply just trying to share the message of the Bible with others. We face many people who are skeptical of the very existence of God, as well as skeptical of the Bible and even the existence of Jesus as a historical individual. Skeptics today state that the Jesus in the Gospels did not really exist but was simply a story made up in different writings called the Gospels. Furthermore, the skeptics believe the Gospels were not written until somewhere between the 2nd and 4th centuries. The following lesson is evidences for the historical evidences of Jesus the Christ and the validity of the Gospels.

<snipped for bandwidth>

Most of this post can be found at this website:

http://www.geocities.com/bkitc/Evide...spelsBible.doc

Julian · 05-20-2005, 09:34 AM

Wow, I never thought I would live to see something like this ever presented again. Everyone of the points you make have been rebutted and, in most cases, refuted. It is not worth addressing each point but why don't you start educating yourself here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html

"Acts of Pilate..." :rolling: Authentic?!?! :rolling:

Julian

Peter Kirby · 05-20-2005, 01:25 PM

I hope your name is Billy...

the source for the above

best,
Peter Kirby

Wallener · 05-20-2005, 01:29 PM

Aren't long cut-and-pastes like that a violation of copyright? They sure make traversing a thread difficult...

meforevidence · 05-20-2005, 01:52 PM

Yes, I am Billy

Toto · 05-20-2005, 01:53 PM

Billy - please do not post long passages from your webpage. It is considered spam.

meforevidence · 05-20-2005, 01:54 PM

Sorry about that Toto

I will try to be more careful about that.

Take care

I am out of here for the day.

Everybody have a Great weekend.

Steven Carr · 05-21-2005, 07:16 AM

Let us take the first one of your evidences.

'Document 4Q321 (Zechariah serving in the Temple)
One source which may not mention the name of Jesus but would be supportive evidence of the time of the birth of Jesus would be a parchment found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is parchment number 321 found in Cave # 4 in Qumran (4Q321). It reveals that Zechariah....'

Here is a translation of 4Q321 http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea....ry/calend.html

It does not mention Zechariah.

You know, the more I read Christian evidences, the more convinced I am that it is all made up.

Mind you , you do claim 'The Bible mentions on many occasions that the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets were not simply just verbal stories, but were actually “written�? and could be read even in the days of Jesus.'

This is pretty non-controversial, so not everything on your page is wrong.

Similarly, you claim 'For the Old and New Testament to be True and authentic, we must accept that there were other books written. Some examples would be as follows: The Book of Enoch.'

Yes, Enoch did and still does exist.

Now all you need to show is that it actually contains the words of Enoch, that Jude said really were the words of Enoch......

Steven Carr · 05-21-2005, 07:23 AM

Here is a good one from the page 'This archeological finding of 1854 was the Cylinder of King Nabonidus (Nebuchadnezzar’s son and Belshazzar’s father). ....'

Nabonidus was Neb's son??????

Vorkosigan · 05-21-2005, 08:26 AM

The OP's site says:

Quote:

In order to try to rid the Christians of the memory or Jesus and even the holy sites, Hadrian had a pagan temple built over the area where Jesus was crucified. He also had idols set up over the crucifixion and burial site. He placed a statue of Venus over the crucifixion site and a statue of Jupiter over the burial / resurrection site.

The statue of Venus was built next to the Forum in Hadrian's new city. What evidence suggests that it was built there on account of Christianity? The Jupiter statue was in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on the Temple Mount. Was Jesus buried and resurrected there?

Quote:

9 to 140 A.D. The words he wrote about Jesus and the Christians are:
Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city of (Rome). Suetonius’ Life of the Emperor Claudius chapter 25 (excerpt).

This one is tired. Suetonius used Chrestus because he meant Chrestus, a common name of the day. That Suetonius has not made a spelling mistake is clear because later in the same text he spells "Christians" correctly. There's no support for Jesus here.

Quote:

Lucian was a Satirist. He also wrote the text “True History.�? Although Lucian was not a witness of Jesus the Messiah, he at least implied he believed in the history of Jesus. Some would say this is not relevant but it is relevant because it was written before the time that many skeptics say the Gospels were written which also implies that the message (Gospel) of Jesus had already been spread abroad.

Can you tell us who these many skeptics are who believe that the Gospels were written after 170? I'll tell you what. Give me the name of two. People, including mainstream scholars, believe that the gospels were redacted and edited over a long period of time, some of it after 170, but I can't think of any prominent skeptic today who thinks the Gospels were written after 170.

Quote:

While Mr. Zindler uses the word “plagiarize,�? most scholars are impressed with the consistency of the Gospels which seem to actually confirm the fact that they are authentic. When in court, if the stories of the witnesses match, then they are usually validated as a testimony.

Sadly, it is well known that Matt, Mark, and Luke are copies of each other, though the exact relationship is disputed. See Carlson's Synoptic Problem Website for a good introduction.

Quote:

As mentioned before, it was once thought that Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem until the Magdalene Jesus Papyri were found (also known as 17P64). It is a segment of Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel, Matthew 26:23 and 31, which has been dated before A.D 66. In 1994, using a scanning laser microscope, Dr. Carsten Thiede compared this fragment with four other manuscripts and concluded that either this is an original of Matthew’s Gospel, or an immediate copy written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses were still alive. This was a big shock to the skeptics who have always maintained that Matthew was written in the second century. Technology has disproved that opinion. Incidentally, the Matthew segment corresponds to Textus Receptus, the traditional source documents.

Please, please, please. Thiede's data has been disproven -- soundly! -- by reputable scholars. There's a good list of excerpts here.

Quote:

The book of Mark must have been written earlier than 70 A.D. because of the fact that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed.

Please explain how you know that Mark must have been written when Jerusalem was not destroyed. That is like arguing that I, Claudius must have been written in the first century because Rome has not yet been conquered by the barbarians.

Quote:

It is likely that Mark wrote his Gospel letter shortly after his journeys with Paul and before 70 A.D. Mark traveled to other parts of Asia as well as the Palestine area.

The writer of Mark is well aware that the Temple has been destroyed, and there are several other indications of a later date as well.

Quote:

Even if Jesus may not have spoken the “Greek�? language, he still quoted the same words in Aramaic that were read in the Greek Septuagint.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming that Jesus didn't speak Greek, but was able to back translate the different version of Isa 29:13 in the LXX into Aramaic? Why would Jesus know the wording of a passage he couldn't read?

What that citation of the LXX shows -- and it is not the only one -- is that the writer of Mark was busy inventing Jesus' life out of the Septuagint as fast as he could.

Quote:

This is important because in the Gospels, Jesus lived before the destruction and recorded when and how Jerusalem would be destroyed. This was also a Specific fulfillment of Daniel chapter 9. Remember that the book of Daniel had been written centuries earlier and was not only written centuries earlier but was translated from Aramaic to Greek and was recognized by not only the Jews but by the largest and most powerful kingdoms at the time (Babylonians, Medo-Persians, and even the Greeks. Also remember that secular historians mentioned Daniel and the fact that after Daniel, Alexander the Great recognized Daniel’s prophecy as beign about himself when he was shown the writings by a Priest.

Wow! What an amazing passage. I leave that to those behind me...it's time for bed here.

05-20-2005, 06:56 AM	#1
meforevidence Junior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Denton Texas Posts: 28	Evidences of Jesus and the Validity Evidences of Jesus and the Validity of the Gospels Today Christians live in an age where we are not simply just trying to share the message of the Bible with others. We face many people who are skeptical of the very existence of God, as well as skeptical of the Bible and even the existence of Jesus as a historical individual. Skeptics today state that the Jesus in the Gospels did not really exist but was simply a story made up in different writings called the Gospels. Furthermore, the skeptics believe the Gospels were not written until somewhere between the 2nd and 4th centuries. The following lesson is evidences for the historical evidences of Jesus the Christ and the validity of the Gospels. <snipped for bandwidth> Most of this post can be found at this website: http://www.geocities.com/bkitc/Evide...spelsBible.doc

05-20-2005, 01:52 PM	#5
meforevidence Junior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Denton Texas Posts: 28	meforevidence Yes, I am Billy

05-20-2005, 01:54 PM	#7
meforevidence Junior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Denton Texas Posts: 28	To: Toto Sorry about that Toto I will try to be more careful about that. Take care I am out of here for the day. Everybody have a Great weekend.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2005, 09:34 AM	#2
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Wow, I never thought I would live to see something like this ever presented again. Everyone of the points you make have been rebutted and, in most cases, refuted. It is not worth addressing each point but why don't you start educating yourself here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html "Acts of Pilate..." :rolling: Authentic?!?! :rolling: Julian

05-20-2005, 01:25 PM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I hope your name is Billy... the source for the above best, Peter Kirby

05-20-2005, 01:29 PM	#4
Wallener Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,043	Aren't long cut-and-pastes like that a violation of copyright? They sure make traversing a thread difficult...

05-20-2005, 01:53 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Billy - please do not post long passages from your webpage. It is considered spam.

05-21-2005, 07:16 AM	#8
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Let us take the first one of your evidences. 'Document 4Q321 (Zechariah serving in the Temple) One source which may not mention the name of Jesus but would be supportive evidence of the time of the birth of Jesus would be a parchment found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is parchment number 321 found in Cave # 4 in Qumran (4Q321). It reveals that Zechariah....' Here is a translation of 4Q321 http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea....ry/calend.html It does not mention Zechariah. You know, the more I read Christian evidences, the more convinced I am that it is all made up. Mind you , you do claim 'The Bible mentions on many occasions that the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets were not simply just verbal stories, but were actually “written�? and could be read even in the days of Jesus.' This is pretty non-controversial, so not everything on your page is wrong. Similarly, you claim 'For the Old and New Testament to be True and authentic, we must accept that there were other books written. Some examples would be as follows: The Book of Enoch.' Yes, Enoch did and still does exist. Now all you need to show is that it actually contains the words of Enoch, that Jude said really were the words of Enoch......

05-21-2005, 07:23 AM	#9
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Here is a good one from the page 'This archeological finding of 1854 was the Cylinder of King Nabonidus (Nebuchadnezzar’s son and Belshazzar’s father). ....' Nabonidus was Neb's son??????

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.