Kilgore Trout

Well let's hear them. It's sure none of the examples you gave. Contemporary sources are defined as sources written by people who actually saw the person. Not ones written fifty or more years later. The gospels claim jesus did miraculous deeds and was none all over the land, yet we're supposed to believe no one saw fit to write about him until many years after his death.

azuresky

Kilgore Trout (for some strange reason I like typing that name--has an interesting ring to it I think),

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I'm not debating right now, Kilgore, since I'm kept so busy at school. I'll be back in a few weeks to exchange posts, however.

Before I sign off, I will say that I define "contemporary" somewhat differently than you. My definition of contemporary involves individual human lives overlapping in time. So, if Paul existed concurrently in time with Jesus, I would consider Paul to be Christ's contemporary. If Paul wrote a letter about Jesus, even if it was after His death, I would consider this a contemporary source authenticating the life of Christ. Maybe when I come back we can discuss this further?

Kilgore Trout

I got my name from a recurring character in Kurt Vonnegut books, if you're interested.Kilgore Trout writes trashy sci-fi novels.
You keep saying you're too busy to debate, but you keep coming back anyway.

Paul only claims to have seen jesus as some sort of spirit and only vaguely refers to his earthly life. He paints the "historic jesus" as some sort of secret from the distant past. I wouldn't exactly call him a very good witness to the historic jesus.

Wayne Delia

Trout's sci-fi novels are actually very well written, but they got their "trashy" reputation from being published in hard-core porn magazines.

WMD, a fan of Vonnegut Jr. since 1972

breathilizer

Yeah, well there would be no reason for a terrorist to fly a jumbo jet into a sky scraper if he weren't going to get a bunch of virgins for it.

Magus, as much as you like to post here, I'd think you would learn to catch yourself before sounding like an idiot. Not saying you are one, but seriously... Think before you speak.

Roland

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in evolution, since the vast majority of biologists clearly accept it as fact? How about the Big Bang which the vast majority of astronomers believe is true? How about the 4.6 billion year-old earth as attested to by the vast majority of geologists?

I don't know if you are a young-earth creationist, but I just thought I'd throw those questions out to you.

azuresky

Roland,

I believe in the Big Bang. I believe that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. I believe in much of the theory of evolution and am unsure about the remainder. Specifically, I am unsure if reptiles evolved into birds, if fish evolved into amphibians, or if apes evolved into humans, etc. I haven't studied evolution thoroughly enough to make an informed decision. I would say that I'm leaning toward accepting evolutionary theory in its entirety, however. Time will tell. I think the point that you are trying to get at involves whether or not I am rejecting the evidence put forth by the vast majority of biologists. Let me first explain to you that in my previous post to Asha'man I was not using an argument from popularity. I was simply trying to assert that when the vast majority of scholars specializing in a specific field of study make a certain claim, we should all sit up straight and take notice. We should next carefully examine the evidence presented by these scholars before finally making up our own minds whether or not to believe their claims. In the case of evolutionary theory, the fact that the majority of biologists accept the theory as genuine raised red flags for me in the past. This has caused me to seriously examine the evidence for and against evolution.

Now, I need to make one more point for poor Gregg, Kilgore Trout, Weltall, and others. I have recently been responding to posts that don't require much of my time. These posts ask me simple questions that I can respond to very quickly. They simply don't require much thought or research on my part. However, I admit that this is still unfair, so I'll stop posting entirely from this moment on until my semester is finally over. Fortunately, I believe that the earlier posts will allow people to understand my outlook on life a little more clearly--this will make for more interesting debates in the future!

philbo

I knew I recognized the name from somewhere, but couldn't put my finger on it - must be fifteen years since I read the Vonnegut I've got on the shelves...

Amaleq13

azuresky and Magus55,


If you really want to return to the OP, how about you defend the assertion that Jesus was crucified in 33 CE? This was brought up but buried under the subsequent avalanche of somewhat tangential arguments. It has yet to be defended with anything more than an appeal to an alleged majority of scholars. What is the basis for this assertion?

If we rely on the alleged eclipse in Jerusalem, the closest you're going to get (according to NASA/Goddard) is Nov 24, 29CE and that was only a partial eclipse.

Do we give the author of Daniel any "wiggle room" or does a prophecy have to be EXACTLY correct to qualify as "fulfilled"?

chapka

Of course, you still need to provide evidence that the letter was written by Paul, and by the same Paul who is described in Acts. This is a major reason why the Gospels, for example, fail as contemporary documents; the traditional "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" attributions were added centuries later by the Catholic Church. I don't know how this applies to the New Testament epistles.