one allegiance

I'm not using subjective judgement, I have no right to. I think everything in the Bible is important. I was merely saying that I don't think Judas killing himself was that well known b/t the disciples at the time.

I don't know why you guys keep asking for more extra biblical evidence other then what has been presented here. That statement is at the end of everyone's post. You are obviously not going to get anymore proof or explanations about Jesus if you don't believe that he was real by now, the evidence is reliable and can be logically traced back to Jesus' existence. You all know that you aren't going to find extra biblical evidence that you deem fitting anyway, but you keep asking for it (which some of you do rather smugly). All you are really saying is "Show me some of your speculative evidence so I can show you up and prove you wrong again"...I think I would actually rather see that then continually reading "I'm still waiting".:Cheeky:

driver8

Regarding inerrancy, you would probably be interested in this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

One would think the Catholics would have some authority here.

Ubercat

Quote:
Originally Posted by cajela
Way, way earlier in this thread the contradictions among the 4 gospels were "reconciled" by noting the common tendency of eye-witnesses to disagree with each other.

Well, that is true - eye-witness testimony is indeed not the most reliable. But if you're granting that the authors are fallible and make mistakes, well, there goes all possible claim to inerrancy, doesn't it?


Then why didn't god make the bible inerrant? If he's perfect, the least he could have done was give us a perfect bible. Heck, if he's infallible then why would he make mankind in such a way that we would fail? He's supposed to be omiscient, right?

-Ubercat

Ubercat

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddc0708
If god were perfect, or even existed in the Judea-Christian value that you present, then he wouldn't have needed to wipe the Earth clean the first time since humans wouldn't have been so right the first time, due to his perfection. So, in the Christian sense, he wouldn't have needed to "flood the earth". That is if you believe that sort of thing to begin with.

There... god is fallable. I could bring to light quite a few more instances, but I'm willing to bet you'll retreat back to the same thing that every Christian does... which is "Oh, that's what God planned to do", as if by some means you could bring human reasoning to your God which you so adamently claim is impossible. So, you see, I'd really like you to explain your stance PV...

What I would really like though is if One allegiance, and yourself, decided to actually give us Extra-Biblical references... but I can see that isn't going to happen.

So you admit that your god is fallible? After all HE's the one who made us this way. (assuming he's real of course)

-Ubercat

aa5874

One allegiance, all we need is for you show us something or tell us someting that is not in the Bible that proves Jesus is alive right now and sitting on the right of God. There must be something you can come up with. It's been 2000 years since Jesus ascended, haven't any unclean spirits been sent into pigs anywhere in the whole world or a dead being raised. There so much that can be done to show us that Jesus is still a God.

Ubercat

Two words. Grilled cheese.

-Ubercat

OldYgg

I was a history major in college. In order to ascertain something as fact you need first person accounts.

You have shown zero first-person accounts. What you have shown are person to the x accounts, some plainly falsified.

Check out American FirstHand - which contains first person accounts of people in early US History. These are the foundations of history.

Old Ygg

Gamera

So Heroditus, the father of history, wasn't an historian, since he has almost no first-person accounts.

Also official documents aren't historical documents because they aren't first person accounts? A law isn't an historical document?

Please. History is simply written texts. That's all history means. We must evaluate those texts for reliability. Often a first person text is less reliable than a text far removed from the first person. Is Mein Kampf a better history of pre-Nazi Germany than third person accounts from newpapers. I don't think so.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Toto]Xenophon was an apologist for Socrates and an exile from Athens with an axe to grind, He purports to write conversations he had with him, but most scholars place the writing well after Socrates purported death. It's quite possible Xenophon meant the works to be novels and Socrates never existed. He made him up (like Plato did) to make political points.

Aristophanes -- he was a playwright. A playwright, as in somebody who writes fictions!

So we have three references, one from a purported disciple whose lifelihood depended on the mythos of this Socrates (i.e., Plato, all written years after Socrates' purported trial of which we have no record!), the other a political exile with an axe to grind against Athens, the purported killer of this Socrates, and the third a writer of fictions.

And you say that's more proof of Socrates' existences than the numerous authors who wrote about Jesus.

The double standard reeks.

If you doubt the historicity of Jesus you are obliged for sure to deny the historicity of Socrates (that's how off course the mythologizers are!)

Gamera

But never for 2000 years. You're refering to hoaxes. Name another hoax that has lasted 2000 and involved dozens of authors and a billion hoodwinked victims.