xaxxat

Yeah, looks like one allegiance wants to hold out on the extra-biblical, contemporary evidence...

Aethernaut

I see. How absurd. So, when the text is lacking you just make up a nonsensical round-about excuse that sounds convenient even though there's absolutely no reason to. So in essence, you don't really care what any contemporary extra-biblical source has to say because you're just making all of this up as you go along?

Aethernaut

Say, does anyone here know if there's any Roman or Sanhedrin record from the period of a Yeshua being crucified circa 30 C.E.? Private writings of Pilate mentioning it perhaps? I'm no expert by any means, though I do find the conversation interesting and I was just wondering.

TomboyMom

O.K., then, don't call us ignorant. btw, you're more ignorant than many posters here; and so am I--there are some very knowledgeable posters in this forum. Or some evidence would be good. Well, I don't think you've presented any evidence yet, except Josephus, which is a forgery. Stop saying it and show it. Cite the historical texts that support the gospels. No, that won't help you. We're looking for that non-gospel support of the gospels. We're looking for some reason to believe the gospels, before they get you anywhere. I think I've posted a few dozen times: cite your evidence. Cite your evidence. If you think there are independent historical sources that support the gospel accounts, cite them.

Clinked on your link for around 5 seconds. I'm not looking for Christian apologetics. I'm looking for independent historians or archeologists, or their sources. That would be convincing.

one allegiance

Everything I have said is claimed to be made up. You can think I made it up or not, but this is the explanation from Christians and it is not far fetched. The branch could have broke or many numerous things. There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another.

Besides you were the one who asked me...How did I know that you wouldn't be satisfied with any answer I gave.

TomboyMom

:rolling: pull the other one; it's got bells on it.

Here are the texts you are trying to reconcile:
Matthew 27:5
And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

So if I get you right, what you're saying is that after he hanged himself, which Matthew apparently thought was the end of the story, and in my native English means that he killed himself by hanging, he went out and bought a field? And that the person who says that he bought a field didn't think it worth mentioning that right before that, he hung himself? And each of them purports to be an account of his death? But you have to read them together to realize that after failing at the hanging, he bought a field and died by accident. Right. Do you think you have any credibility now?

Let me ask you this:
If these two accounts were in the Koran, and not the bible, would you still think they were consistent?

one allegiance

Sorry, I just said that I'm not even going to worry about extra biblical evidence yet...Did you see my argument about the gospels? You might like some of it...most is based on basic archaeology.

TomboyMom

one allegiance: The questions isn't whether it's possible for someone with a lot of imagination to invent a story that could contain the two passages. The question is whether the ordinary reader, taking them literally and in context, would think that they contained two different accounts of the death of the same man. Clearly, they do, which is why your answer can not be satisfactory. Any unbiased person can clearly see that they are in fact contradictory.

seraphimkawaii

But...this entire thread is called "EXTRA BIBLICAL EVIDENCE". That's what we want to see. We've been waiting for quite a while for it, so can you please handle that first (maybe with patriarch coming back to defend his own thread), and then we can have a crack at your gospel argument?

funinspace

Well don't you know that Mohammad wasn't a child molester. He waited until she was of age before he consummated the marriage

Personally, I enjoy the apologetic verbal gymnastics on where Jesus was over the first few years of his life regarding Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Egypt, wise men, houses, and stables.