bfniii

i have a question. in your opinion, why isn't gnosicism or zoroastrianism the world's first or second most populace religion?

if the christians were able to travel around and speak to people about their testimonies, why weren't these other people able to travel to verify their stories? if the christians had access to the epistles in question, why wouldn't anyone else have the same access? i'm sure the christians would have been more than glad to share them. additionally, your response doesn't address the fact that there were christians in judea/jerusalem who were telling the exact same stories to people who did/didn't witness the same events. that doesn't seem like it would have been too hard to debunk.

actually, acts isn't contradictory regarding Judas' death. matthew does not say that judas did not fall while peter does not say that judas did not hang himself. what other ways is acts contradictory?

well, there have been people who fell victim to such maliciousness and it was reported.

is it possible that people in the 1st and 2nd centuries who did investigate the claims of the christians, actually became convinced that their proofs were irrefutable and converted to the religion?

i supposed you're trying to show contradiction. although the 4 accounts differ, they don't contradict. Bible 101.

would you mind if we discussed these issues either offline or in another forum? they are interesting, but not really along the lines of this thread. i could point you to some resources that clear up basic bible contradictions.

how about the roman annals by tacitus? tacitus confirms pontius pilate as the procurator of judea just as the Bible does.

would you be referring to the apparent contradiction between 1 chron 21:5 and 2 sam 24:9?

regarding josephus on herod, as i have been told previously in this thread, who knows if any of josephus' works are genuine?

from what i have read of the antiquities, herod is mentioned several times, usually in conjunction with politcal alignment or inheritance. although i haven't read every word of the antiquities, i don't see a disposition of josephus to mention such occurrences of his edicts. the edicts that are mentioned are usually politically motivated (herod appointed so and so). i see josephus focus on who herod's family was, who he went to war with, what happened to his belongings after he died or some indirect reference to him. additionally, i see very little of josephus reporting the goings on of the state other than what was related to rome. josephus doesn't appear to mention miraculous events much at all. just an observation. what are your thoughts?

i had heard of the preterists but had forgotten. thanks for reminding me. here is an example of why i disagree with the preterist view:

[Mt 16:28, Lk 9:27] vs [Mk 13:30, Lk 21:32, Mt 24:34] - the use of the word genea is unfortunately translated literally by some because of the other uses of the word elsewhere. However, who is Jesus speaking to and in what context? He is speaking figuratively and prophetically, as opposed to the other uses, which are historical, ALL THROUGHOUT this discourse to the people who would found His church. It is unbelievable that Jesus would not have been aware of this dynamic. Based on the research I have done, I believe genea is referring to the people who make up the church age (the people to whom He was speaking) in the dispensation of grace.

at any rate, you originally proposed that since historians don't deny the preterist view, how do we know it's not true? the original point of the thread was to determine the historical validity of biblical claims despite lack of extra-biblical corroboration. neither preterist nor futurist denies the historicity of the events in question. rather, there is a difference of opinion regarding biblical interpretation of said events.

bfniii

[QUOTE=DramaQ]No where in all the posts you’ve made have you ONCE ever refuted the idea that the universe was created by a giant purple duck. Since you utterly failed to refute this anywhere – by your logic – you must not disbelieve the claim.

i understand your analogy. if by purple duck you mean God, well then i agree.

i don't know. where are the prophecies about them? where are the alleged eyewitnesses? do these people have a following to this day? do their followers go to the ends of the earth because of their zeal?

yet critics of christianity point to the lack of evidence in the writings of josephus, pliny the elder and egyptian history as proof that the claims of the Bible are false. in other words, aren't you making the same argument in reverse?

so somehow christians were able to find and destroy ALL books that were unfavorable to christianity? i think it's more reasonable to believe that there were little to no books written in the first two centuries that directly refute christian claims because it's exceedingly difficult to refute truth.

you conveniently omit that few people OUTSIDE of germany agreed with nazi ideals thus plunging the world into war. this is exactly my point. if the christians were the axis, where are the allies? if hitler were right, then german idealism, mysticism and racial superiority would have prevailed over the inferior species of peoples. however, we see the reverse in the growth of christianity.

i understand. these things are implausible, but not impossible. so, for the sake of argument, if any of these were to occur, it would be hard to believe even if YOU YOURSELF witnessed them.

apparently, many people witnessed these biblical events.

history does not seem to support this assertion. christianity wasn't truly in power until constantine, agreed? before then, christians were looked down upon and even worse by jewish authorities and roman as well. so while christianity was still growing, it was fighting an uphill battle, politically speaking. the members of and proponents of christianity had little to no political power. however, christianity had already established itself as a religion BEFORE constantine converted. this means that while christianity was growing, it would not have been hard to squash the religion if it were based on lies because it would have had no clout either politically or meritoriously.

bfniii

once again, the mob that crucified Jesus would be an exception to this example. apparently, they went to alot of trouble to ignore a notorious prisoner to kill an innocent man.

nero cared enough.

from what i have read, the "gate" of nain was the road into the city that passed between a housing complex. it was given the monniker gate for lack of a better term. i don't see where the Bible claims nain had a "wall". could you help me with that?

absence of physical evidence? Noted archaeologist Nelson Glueck writes, "it may be clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." yale archaeologist millar burrows states "on the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record."

bfniii

i think you are saying there may not have been an oral tradition. how did they preserve the mishna before it was written?

apostolic authorship is, no doubt, debatable. however, there is a reasonable case for apostolic authorship in the cases of matthew and john.

Gullwind

Acts 9 and Acts 22. Two accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. One says the men with him heard a voice, the other says they didn't. :wave:

bfniii

well stated. as i have said before, while we may not have hard evidence yet for every single jot in the Bible (more and more evidence appears over time) and while some biblical claims are extremely difficult to digest (if one ignores an omnipotent God), there remains no concrete reason to doubt the Bible. there are apparent contradictions and the Bible is intentionally vague in some places (until prophecies are clearly revealed). but that has yet to obivate it's veracity. some people need more evidence than others and that's ok. if a skeptic doubts, fine. but it is not necessary to ridicule someone else who requires less evidence. neither is better than the other, just different (as will be their ultimate fates, though).

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. i would restate the sentence to say each claim can be considered on it's own.

neither is there equal support refuting the "risen saints" claim in matthew.

tacitus is an author who has corroborated biblical details.

yet we don't see them disproving christians claims by using alternative eyewitnesses or other physical evidence.

unless pilate felt pressure from a "tumult that was rising". it's unlikely that pilate was completely unaware of the unrest brewing in that region giving him motive and ability to adjust usual roman practices.

bfniii

this post is well stated and well researched. i have enjoyed our debate.

question: why would it be so difficult for someone to gather just a handful of people who were in jerusalem at the time of the "risen saints" to debunk the story? if the Jesus of the Bible either didn't exist or wasn't crucified, why would it have been so hard to interview just one roman official to debunk the story. these are just a couple of examples of the myriad ways someone could, with extremely little effort, discredit christians.

what i meant was that paul was not a christian at the time of Christ's appearance to him. additionally, the entourage shared the experience.

that might be a "pascal's wager" type question.

so what is credible from that time? i have already listed 5 critical tests the Bible passes in another post. i can go over them again if you like.

this really is another thread but, what is truth? it either exists or it doesn't. claiming there is no absolute truth violates the law of non-contradiction. therefore, absolute truth exists. the next step is if truth can be known. knowledge of the absolute nature of the LNC presupposes that absolute truth can be known absolutely. now we hold epistemology against that template to see if it holds water. in the case of examining the Bible, there is no direct refutation of even the miraculous claims. at least that's the angle i have taken. i realize you are coming from the opposite pole. however, i do agree that historians don't accept histories as literally true.

bfniii

what i meant was YOUR post is well stated and researched, mageth. i didn't want "this" to be confused with my post.

bfniii

you have introduced a new element that didn't exist in the original idea. that being TWO contradictory claims which is precisely what we lack. what i'm asking for is the opposing claim that refutes biblical claims.

can we study works of pliny the elder other than naturalis historia? apparently not. unfalsifiability leads to epistemological meaninglessness. as far as the Bible is concerned, the number of copies can be used as an internal consistency analysis. so the answer is yes, number of copies does mean something.

historical as in they provide names, dates and places that can be verified.

interesting. it appears your response didn't answer the question. the original question was if christians were liars, how could their claims have passed muster? it would have been quite easy to debunk them.

yet you don't provide a specific way it is highly suspicious.

i have been told on this thread that the works of josephus shouldn't be trusted. what do you say?

what exactly do you mean by "rarely"? is there some percentage you are going by?

i forgot; old is untrue. einstein is old. he must suck by now. and those physicists who are popularizing newton again, they must really be stupid. is there a reason other than that why that geezer glueck is an archaeological heretic?

this person would disagree about the exodus:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/...odus_egypt.php

i have a work in my hands that credits 52 ph.d's and th.d's supporting matthean and johnanine authorship. i doubt they're the only ones, either. you know as well as i do there are convincing cases supporting apostolic authorship.

additionally, even if matthew did copy mark, that doesn't mean matthew wasn't an eyewitness.

irenaeus explicitly testifies that john penned the gospel while residing in ephesus from 66-98. last i checked, he was a church father. the rylands fragment would seem to concur.

that was a colorful tale. i got bored at the part that referenced the Jesus seminar. there weren't any pictures. i admit i'm sleepy, but i didn't see anything in there that contradicted the aforementioned irenaeus quote.

bfniii

yawn. "akouontes" gk. they "heard" a voice but did not "understand" what it said. the voice only spoke clearly to saul/paul.

any others?