Dean Anderson

They do make mention of it - as you have just quoted above.

The Gospels were written after 70 AD (with the possible exception of Mark) but the stories in them are set before that date.

If I write a story set in the 1920's, I might have one of the characters in it make a spookily accurate prediction about the Nazi party in Germany being likely to come to power and sweep across Europe. I can do that because I am writing the story after the events have happened. However, since the story is set in the 1920's, then the story won't mention World War II happening because in the context of the story itself it hasn't happened yet.

The Gospels are just the same. The writers know that the Temple has been destroyed - so they can easily have their Jesus character make an accurate prediction of it, but the writers don't describe the Temple being destroyed within the Gospel, because in the context of the story about Jesus it hasn't happened yet.

Now please explain why your explanation (requiring the existence of a Supernatural character who can prophesise) is more likely than my explanation (which merely requires a semi-competent author).

Even if we grant that both explanations are possible, this is not in any way evidence or proof that your explanation is the correct one.

Exactly the same argument applies here. The author may know of the events, but the story is set before the events have occured - so it does not mention them.

Firstly, if the events didn't happen then there wouldn't be any eyewitnesses to correct the Gospels.

Secondly, the four canonic Gospels are a small subset of the 20+ Gospels that were around in the early days of Christianity. They are all contradictory and "corrective" to each other - and the fact that a proto-orthodox group managed to smother (as you put it) all the other variations and impose their canon of four Gospels on the developing religion shows that the variety of Gospels was indeed diminished.

No, you haven't proved anything yet, but we'll carry on regardless.

You've really shot yourself in the foot now. Yes - this is historically verifiable stuff.

And history verifies that the census you talk about happened. Unfortunately, it verifies that it happened ten years after Herod's death.

So either Jesus was born before Herod's death (as Matthew says) or he was born after Quirinius's census (as Luke says). The two birth dates are mutually contradictory and cannot both be right.

As you say - this stuff can be historically verified. Pity that it verifies that the Bible is historically inaccurate.

Well, so far you're batting 0 for 2 - and haven't proved either of your claims...

Let's carry on though, this is fun.

So? The Iliad talks about real Mediterranean cities and countries, but that doesn't make it true.

That the stories are set in real places does not make them true.

This is just utter rubbish. Your website is lying to you. There are more than 30,000 differences between the manuscripts that we have. There are more variant readings in the New Testament than there are words in it!

Yep - I've considered it. And my consideration is that it is incredibly poor evidence that not only utterly fails to help make your case, but it actively refutes it when it comes to historical accuracy.

Aethernaut

You did not provide an answer, you provided an apologetic completely unsubstantiated by evidence. It's exactly the regurgitation of what you've been told that I expected with little or no scholarship to back it up.

Now that that's out of the way, perhaps you might now provide us with an extra-biblical contemporary account of the crucifixion story? Not one from 20 years after the event and certainly not one from 270 years after the even. Contemporary. Preferably backed by all of these scholars you keep going on about which you've neither quoted nor named?

one allegiance

Matthew 27:3-10 says, "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

Acts 1:16-20 says, "Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take."

Judas brought back the money to the chief priests and elders, but they would not receive it back. That is why Judas threw the money down on the floor. "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." So the religious leaders did not accept the money back.

Such the case with the elders and chief priests then was what they did with it. They would not receive the money back from Judas. What they did was TAKE HIS MONEY LAYING ON THE FLOOR, and they bought the potter’s field with it. Acts 1:18 says, "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity." Even though he was dead, it was his money (his reward for iniquity, betraying the Lord) that bought the field.

Dean Anderson

The text does not say that the field was bought with his money.

It says that he bought the field.

It also says that he fell headlong, not that he hung himself and then fell (because the knot slipped or the rope broke).

Please explain how it is possible to fall head-first (headlong) from the starting position of being hanged.

Ubercat

So in other words, like many other christians who've discovered IIDB, you got stung by trusting the claims of your fellow christians. You came here, spouted some rubbish, and were stunned to discover that we wouldn't just take your word for everything the way you just took the word of others. Funny how untruths can survive, passed on, century after century.

-Ubercat

Ubercat

So Judas despairingly threw down his 30 pieces of silver in the temple, went and hanged himself, survived the hanging, went back and picked up his money (still lying there) bought a field, and then suffered a spontaneous, fatal stomach explosion? You're right. It all makes perfect sense. We non believers just have to be willing to stop our dogmatic rejection of the bible. :rolling:

-Ubercat

show_no_mercy

What about Monday? Tuesday? Wednesday? Thursday? Friday? Saturday?

You might want to rethink that whole BC-AD concept as evidence for Jesus...

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?

Patriarch Verlch

Man is fallible, God isn't.

Sauron

Which could be neatly addressed by the statement "man exists, god(s) doesn't."

Hint: assuming your conclusion again.