Patriarch Verlch

What was in my first post. That was extra biblical.

Some of that stuff was just 100 years later. Talking about those irritating Christians. Who are still irritating the secular world with their beliefs 2000 years later.

For Christ only having a three year ministry, and this kind of following, is amazing. Nothing short of a miracle.

cjack

Navy men, sea captains, and "other guys" survived the flood? Or was the Ark on display at some Naval museum where modern day navy men and sea captains could look at it?

Or perhaps there's a long history of shipwrights climbing Mt. Ararat to study ship building?

Yeah, that's it. And since the Ark was the most sea worthy vessel they have ever seen, that would explain all the Ark-shaped ships we see today. Damned near unsinkable, those Arks.

Patriarch Verlch

How do you know, it took Noah 125 years to built it. To me that is pretty sea worthy. But not to the skeptic. Oh no.

Remember that Noah had quite a following of people mocking him as he worked day and night. For 125 years until the water drowned them all. According to scripture of course.

Umm come again, walking fish, talking monkey's and magical atoms that come to life on their own.

Biff the unclean

No, not to the skeptic; only to the gullible.
The ark was made out of WOOD. It is not possible to build a wooden hull of the size stated in the bible. There is not enough material strength in wood…in any species of wood…that would allow you to construct it. Doesn’t matter how long you took.
You could only construct such a hull out of steel.

According to scripture God is a genocidal maniac who murders almost everyone in the world by drowning them. And you worship such a monster?

Magnus Armstrong

Noah worked on the ark for a century and a quarter?

Seems like the wood on one end would have rotted before the other end was finished.

Alexander Pink

:rolling: duh Magnus not if Goddidit comeon you're so stupid how can you not see it!

one allegiance

I'm going to present a nice formal argument, since there is a lot of confusion about stuff that I seemingly randomly spit out.

Before I begin with this evidence let me clear up a few preconceived objections.

The first objection I would like to address is that of the notion that "history is relative and not objective." If objective means absolute then they can be right about the relativity of history, but there is no reason that historical evidence cannot give us a fair revisable account of the events. The very assertion of "All statements about history are relative", is a relative assertion itself. If it is relative then it is not necessarily true it is just a subjective opinion of historical studies. The objectivity of history is inescapable. Why else would historians be constantly rewriting history books if they did not think that they could come closer to an ideal 100 percent objective accuracy. So to some this up, you have to take history as it is and respect that what we know now isn't just a bunch of subjective opinions about what happened...that would contradict history all together.

The second objection that has come up a lot is about the credibility of the Bible. Now, I don't know if I'm even going to reference the Bible in this post but if I do I would like you to take it as a credible source, and here is why.

P1. Gospels were written by eye witnesses within 40 years of the events described, there is a fair degree of accuracy here.

P2. The Bible is not just one account of these events, but atleast four accounts of relative accuracy.

P3. The account given in the gospels agrees with evidence from secular and Jewish historians of the first and second century. (I will show the evidence of these historians later on).

P4. The Bible has been proven to be remarkably accurate in what it says about the ancient world. For example, in citing 32 countries, 54 cities, 9 islands, and many historical rulers.

So if I do reference something from the Bible, understand that it CANNOT be completely thrown out.

Ok, on with the argument.

The Nicene Creed

This states the uniform belief of all orthodox Christianity. This was the dispute over Jesus's DIVINITY. There is no other evidence contrary to this. You cannot say that this didn't happen. It happened in 325 A.D. close enough for them to interpret the gospels and accounts of ressurection and burial. The conclusion of this was that they established that He was divine. There are three principal texts of the creed. (1) The Greek text as found in the acts of the second (imperfectly), fourth, and sixth ecumenical councils and the works of the later Greek Fathers. (2) The Latin text, represented by a series of translations from the Greek in various manuscripts, of which the most important are the so-called interpretation of Dionysius Exiguus, the acts of the Council of Toledo (589), those of the Council of Friuli (796), and that put up by Leo III. in St. Paul's church at Rome. (3) The Greek text used in the West, as preserved in some manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries. Mention may also be made of certain ancient versions, such as the Syriac (Nitrian MS. of 562 in the British Museum), the Arabic-Coptic, and two Anglo-Saxon (MSS. of the eleventh and thirteenth centuries at Oxford and Cambridge). They are all very real and all an EFFECT of the gospels and Jesus. For every cause you see an effect. How can something as accurate as what was described in the gospels be duplicated by the Council of Nicea if there wasn't already gospels in the first place. This makes the gospels VERY valid evidence. Nonetheless, the Council of Nicea suggests that it happened for a reason, and we happen to know what that reason was.

Jewish External evidence

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. The Talmud also refrences Jesus. But the greatest support is from the Mishna, an early writing in the Talmud, and it says something that is identical to what happened to Jesus.
"He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem." This was written about Jesus apparently. How do we know that it was written BEFORE his arrest? 1) Future tense is used. 2) Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved. 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion. 4) That Jesus was performing "sorcery" which were the miracles. This accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous healings, performing them with the help of the devil (Luke 11:18).
The next Jewish reference is Josephus. He metions Jesus in "Jewish Antiquities". And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

Now keep in mind these are all JEWISH references, and they mocked Jesus for claiming to be what he was.

Secular

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable sources of first century Rome, wrote in his book "Annals". He reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus". He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution. Now, Tacitus was known for HATING the Christians, and would have loved nothing more than to disprove that Jesus existed. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that Christians were cultists. Even if there were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage but no Manuscript analysis and computer studies have ever found any reason to call this reference into question, nor its context.

There were many other Roman historians that mention Christians and Jesus, but I feel like I'm exceeding the word limit. But you get the point. If you want me to list all of the Roman historians I will do so later. Further if you reject this as reliable evidence then you should scroll up and read my first objection that I refuted. The statement of history being relative. Because if you do in fact reject this, then you do think that history is relative and that would apply to ALL of history, which would obviously have no relevance to you.

There are many references outside of the Bible that will enable you to logically trace back to God's existence. As for the whole B.C. and A.D and Christianity thing, I was merely pointing out some minor details that are sometimes overlooked. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus was more than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.

Some of you think that this is illogical and you can mock me up and down for it, but it wont get us anywhere. There is no need to bring any kind of malice to the the argument. So any remarks like "I'm an easy target", or "I'm just grasping and desperate", are better off left to yourself b/c I won't respond to you. It will go a lot smoother if you just make your comments and point out the fallacies that you perceive. It is kind of hard for me to respond to you all when I have to sift through all of the insults to actually find out what you are objecting to.

RGD

Well, at least you admit it looks random - that's a start. The question is whether you are actually going to present a formal argument and whether it will be nice.

OK.

This certainly appears to be a complete non-sequitur: I don't think anyone here is claiming that history is purely relative. I would argue that history is purely an approximation of the truth, however.

It is obviously as credible as any source of it's type and age can be. It is an apologetic, written by passionate believers in a particular cause. It certainly contains some accurate historical information, but it cannot be regarded as a valid source for supernatural information unless you admit that all religious documents are a valid source. And since the Bible is contradicted by the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Tao te Ching, etc. that makes it valueless for supernatural data.

This is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship.

This is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship.

Actually, you're wrong about that. Or wrong in some instances and right in others. But again, this is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship.

No, it has not. This is not a reason the Bible should be considered accurate; this is an assertion about the Bible which is not supported by scholarship. Nor is this the point in question: no one here is disputing that some accurate information may be found in the Bible. But the presence of a single accurate data point does not make the ENTIRETY of the Bible accurate.

You'd better memorize that, 'cause you're going to get nailed on it.

That's not what we've said. What we have pointed out is that in most cases it is the single source of information; that is cannot be corroborated; and that supernatural events require extraordinary support. So far you have given no support.

OK.

This is irrational: what you have established is that the Council of Nicea took place (which we don't dispute) and that at the council, the Nicene Creed was adopted (which we also don't dispute).

That does nothing to establish whether or not the creed is correct. All you have done is point out that's it's reasonable to conclude that a group of folks meeting in Nicea in the early part of the 4th century agreed on a point of belief.

THAT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID BELIEF IS TRUE.

Not so far as I know. Got an actual reference? Congratulations. It doesn't say that Jesus was stoned - so your claim that this is identical is a complete fabrication. The Josephus passage is generally considered to be an interpolation.

And again, this does nothing to establish that Jesus was God, or that the Gospels should be taken as accurate when making extraordinary claims.

So what?

So what? Tacitus is simply reporting on a set of beliefs present in his day - this does not establish that those beliefs are true. A complete lie. It's not nice for Christians to lie. Do try again, please. Provide evidence for this. He could not have done so. This passage does nothing to establish his 'historicity' - it only establishes that Tacitus reported on a group in Rome holding certain beliefs. The fact that you don't understand it (apparently) does not mean there is a problem with it.

A completely illogical non-sequitur. What you have presented is evidence that some people in the past had a particular belief; you have not established that the belief was TRUE.

Sure. The Qu'ran lays it all out very nicely. Too bad for that non-divine prophet guy Jesus, eh? You got caught using bogus evidence. Take it like a man and admit it.[quote] Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus was more than a man.[/quoet] And you've provided no evidence whatsoever for that. You're doing a fairly good job of avoiding the obvious, I'll admit.

It's illogical, and I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out that your 'evidence' does not support your point.

Gawen

I'm sending this to Biblical Criticism & History Forum.

ggazoo

Many instances in the Bible, including the controversy over the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, has been substantiated by both historical and archeological evidence. When Paul, James, Peter, and many others were preaching about the resurrection, there is no record, even in the Palestinian Talmud, of anyone ever disputing what these men and women had witnessed. Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before His assension (sp?) and had spoken to groups of people up to 5,000. His ministry was real, and He quoted quite a bit from the existing scriptures (which is now the OT). So we know historically Jesus, His ministry, death, resurrection, and assension was real, and in His ministry He validated the OT, which also has alot of strong support hisorically and archeaologically.

Josephus was a noted historian and here is a passage he wrote in 93 A.D.:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accursed by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prohesied these and countless other marvelous things about him."

Another well noted historian was actually the writer of two of the books of the Bible- Luke. Archaeology has shown that he was write in many of his descriptions. Luke refered to Lysanias asbeing the tetrarch of Abilene in 27 A.D. For years scholars were using this to disprove Luke's credibility since Lysanias was not a tetrarch but a ruler 50 years earlier, but later we see archaeological evidence to prove Luke's statement:

"An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius, from A.D. 14 to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus- just as Luke had written."- John McRay, Ph.D.

"It's extremely significant that Luke has been established to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke's references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, finding not a single mistake."- McRay

Historian Michael Grant stated in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, "True, the discovery ofthe empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty."