Is the New Testament historically accurate? (verses, atheist, bishop, Apostle)

[StanJP]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It won't do. not only is the story improbable in itself (Herod would of course have sent agents to shadow the wise men) contradict Luke (He says that the family went back to Nazareth after a week or so) but not only does no historian mention this atrocity but none of the other gospels do. Indeed Luke contradicts Herod even being alive. And what do you have? Blinkered insistence that the Bible is reliable no matter how clearly it isn't. You were out two strikes ago.

Denial doesn't equal fact, nor does inventing scenarios. Does Josephus account for ALL of Herod's atrocities? How many babies were two or under from a town of 300 - 500 people? The Bible IS reliable and asserting it isn't without factual evidence doesn't serve anyone productively. I wonder why you doubt Luke and Matthew but don't doubt the accuracy of Josephus? Seems pretty biased to me.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The reason was that you didn't collect Roman taxes in client kingdoms. you are making stuff up. As soon as Rome took over Judea as a province a census was made to assess tax. This is quite straightforwards and what Josephus tells us twice. I fail to see what is the relevance of the rest of your post.

Who is making stuff up? Herod had to pay tribute to Rome and did. One of the reasons why his own people hated him so much.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That makes no difference to the discrepancy between Luke and Matthew. at most it shows that Luke is wrong in using the 6 AD census (when the revolt broke out) as the mechanism to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. And you have so far produced nothing valid to backdate it to king Herod's time.

What it shows is that you believe only Josephus apparently and only on things that don't involve Christianity. Another point of bias, but NOT credible at all. I would not mention proof if I were you, seeing as all you give is conjecture and denial and very little fact. At least I link to credible articles by credentialed people.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Another apologetics site I have to refute. Thanks for wasting my time and making no case of your own.

Do you actually understand what REFUTE means? Denying something does not mean you refute it. Do you understand what apologetics is? It a means to PROVING your assertion or POV, which these links DO.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I have seen this one before. It is simply fiddling the terms for governor to try to make Quirinus conduct a census in the time of Herod. This is improbable because Judea was part of Herod's client kingdom. The tax census carried out 'in the area' were in places that were governed by Rome. Judea wasn't. It is certainly improbable that Quirinus was available and he was campaigning in the Taurus' at that time and the terms of the Lucan census show that it was a normal Roman one, not one carried out secretly for Herod. It is improbable that such a census if it was known to Joseph would also be known to Josephus and finally, it is still impossible that Joseph would need to go to his ancestral city even though that apologetics site craftily tries to make ones own city look like it.

I can't be sure what you have or have not seen, as you don't corroborate anything you assert or deny.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That site was out two strikes ago as well.
It is one extra reason to doubt that Luke knew what he was talking about. Since Gadara was the place, that was the name he should have used. Since he didn't, he was referring to some other place. Gergesa doesn't match so Jerash is the best bet. And howcome all of a sudden the overwhelming acceptance that Luke mistook the place is of not concern to the person who is appealing to numbers in support of 'committment to God' as a reason to accept or reject evidence-based assessments.

Again you denying facts doesn't actually negate them. Seems you think we should take your words for everything you assert, without providing ANY proof. Sorry but I have studied this for over 45 years and I've seen all the ploys of unbelievers. It has never worked on me and those who KNOW, and still doesn't. You may have heard of the old adage, "put up or shut up"?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

When did I assert that Jesus never visited Gadara? I said it is impossible to know.

Not what I referred to, so please don't start equivocating. read you own post where you said; "when one becomes aware of how unreliable and contradictory the Gospel stories are"

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You look at the map and tell my who on earth there should be a road running along the border and why Jesus would using ut when of course he would follow the routhe from Lake Galilee south to Jerusalem?

Why is subjective and not relevant. Unless you can SHOW proof that there wasn't, then there is no reason for me or ANY believer to doubt the accurate historical account presented in the gospels.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You have no evidence to support your argument and some cogent reasons to doubt it. You are simply playing the 'no 100% proof against..so it must be true' card.

You recognize your own MO do you?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Not unless you are totally biased.

You mean like yourself?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

cAcessing this or that website (especially as Christians saturate the net with their propaganda) proves nio more than more Bibles printed than any othr book makes it ture.

So you DON'T read with an open mind? You simpley deny and spout your own POV, without proof?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The only valid criterion for assessing it is reason and evidence. Faith leads only to bias.

Faith leads to God and freedom from bias, but when you are biased it leads nowhere.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

But you don't. The first hand accounts - Josephus - show that Luke conflicts with Matthew and cannot be correct anyway. You are rejecting these accounts in favour of an imaginary earlier Judas who reviolted against a tax census imposed by Quirinus, in Herod's time, without an atom of evidence for it.

Josephus was NOT a first hand account, which you have already acknowledged, so it is obvious you can't make up your mind what you will or won't accept, except as it relates to supporting your own bias.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It doesn't matter whether you insist that the gospels were eyewitness and reject any history that doesn't suit you. It doesn't alter the fact that Luke and Matthew contradict totally even if you propose an earlier Roman census in Herod's time nor does it make sense of the pointless trip to Bethlehem when you registered in your own city.
You are grasping at straws that aren't even there.

Therefore to use your own reasoning/rational, neither does your response. You have NOT shown any facts, just unsupported assertions.
I'm showing you what credible and credentialed scholars state. Deny it at your own peril.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by cupper3

I see you are very biblical. Believing in things that can't be proven.

Hebrews 11:1 :

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Considering that practically every trained scholar on the planet, to use Bart Ehrman's words, believes that Jesus existed and was crucified, and that many scholars recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Christ, which has been the subject of my posting on this thread, your statement is shown to be false. Scholars believe this based on historical evidence. Simply refer to post #42.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mike555

No. Paul is not lying according to me. Simply refer to post #205 and read the link I posted. I'll not go over this with you any further either.

And the apologetics are not untenable. You just refuse to accept them. And you've taken up enough of my time.

And you've taken up enough of mine, continuing to maintain that your convoluted and imaginary explanation makes more sense that the simple explanation that Acts rewrites Paul's escape to blame the 'Jews'.

Originally Posted by cupper3

I see you are very biblical. Believing in things that can't be proven.

Hebrews 11:1 :

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

It is hard to Prove anything conclusively, especially to those who will refuse to accept the evidence, no matter how compelling. Just see the examples of John not mentioning the transfiguration, the attempt to reconcile the Nativities with an imaginary Herodian census (with a Judas - led revolt, too) and involving Quirunus, no less simply in order to remove the dating discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, and the recent example of a supposed response to Luke's Eleven (the 12 minus Judas) contradicting John who has Thomas absent at the time as well. Just posting the whole of the passages with no explanation at all and then claiming there is no contradiction.

If one can put faith (and as much bias as possible ) aside and look at the evidence, then the simple explanation that there are real contradictions and discrepancies, real errors and invention, and real mistakes and text -fiddling, becomes undeniable except to those for whom denial of fact is part and parcel of Faith.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Considering that practically every trained scholar on the planet, to use Bart Ehrman's words, believes that Jesus existed and was crucified, and that many scholars recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Christ, which has been the subject of my posting on this thread, your statement is shown to be false. Scholars believe this based on historical evidence. Simply refer to post #42.

I believe that Jesus existed and was crucified myself. Because of the evidence, not because of Faith or bias. And I believe that the resurrection stories are fabricated and the implication of that, linked to what Paul says about resurrection is the reason that a solid -body resurrection is untenable, no matter how 'many' believe it. The evidence is there and scholarship will come to see it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by StanJP

Denial doesn't equal fact, nor does inventing scenarios. Does Josephus account for ALL of Herod's atrocities? How many babies were two or under from a town of 300 - 500 people? The Bible IS reliable and asserting it isn't without factual evidence doesn't serve anyone productively. I wonder why you doubt Luke and Matthew but don't doubt the accuracy of Josephus? Seems pretty biased to me.

Nor does ignoring evidence and good reason to doubt. There is some mileage in the suggestion that there were only a few 2 year olds in Bethlehem and so an atrocity of that kind might have been unknown to history, though Josephus does seem to have heard of most of what Herod did, and it really isn’t legitimate to dismiss as no evidence the fact that Josephus didn’t know about it. Because the additional evidence is that none of the other gospels know about it. They don’t know about any of Matthew’s story. Indeed Luke refutes it by having the family go back to Nazareth a week or so later.
The Bible is clearly NOT reliable and you reject it on the rather feeble appeal to ‘just because nobody knows about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen’ excuse and persistently ignore the pretty clear evidence that the stories conflict totally. And you talk to me about bias? [quote]

Who is making stuff up? Herod had to pay tribute to Rome and did. One of the reasons why his own people hated him so much.

You are. Herod might have paid tribute – I would like to see the evidence for that – but what is being made up is a Roman –style census – count to assess tax and carried out by a Roman official – Quirinus - the same one who would be conducting the 6 AD census described in both books by Josephus. And as if that wasn’t unlikely enough (never mind there being NO evidence for it whatsoever) there is a Judas leading a revolt against that tax census. And Josephus mentions nothing about it all. And of course, neither do the other gospels.

With not a scrap of evidence for it, making stuff up’ is mild. In denial of the improbability of the claim and the (negative – admittedly) evidence of Josephus, I can think of worse descriptions.

What it shows is that you believe only Josephus apparently and only on things that don't involve Christianity. Another point of bias, but NOT credible at all. I would not mention proof if I were you, seeing as all you give is conjecture and denial and very little fact. At least I link to credible articles by credentialed people.

Credible articles? One apparently tried to argue that the two accounts of the tax census and revolt were different events, one in 6 AD and one in Herod’s time, when they were clearly the same event, 6 AD. The other tried to fiddle ‘Own city’ to mean ‘ancestral city’. These are not ‘credible sites’ These are apologetics sites trying to deceive people into thinking that there is no contradiction between the two nativities – by fiddling and misrepresenting the evidence.

And the only two sites I have seen looking at the 'argument that Luke is talking about a tax census before Quirinus became governor' both agree that this is grammatically improbable Greek and the usual 'WHEN he was governor' (6 AD) is the right one. That alone completely scuppers the whole 'Herodian tax' claim.

As to Josephus, I am inclined to give him as much credit as say a Roman or Greek historian for the events of their time, but the further back they go the more legendary it seems to get. What more do you expect from me?

Do you actually understand what REFUTE means? Denying something does not mean you refute it. Do you understand what apologetics is? It a means to PROVING your assertion or POV, which these links DO.

Yes. Refute is to take claims that are without substance or relevance or are fiddling and misrepresenting the evidence and show them up as without validity.

I can't be sure what you have or have not seen, as you don't corroborate anything you assert or deny.

What do you want? Judea was part of Herod’s client kingdom. This is fact. You say Herod paid tribute. I don’t deny that, but YOU don’t substantiate that. I point to what Luke says in his nativity which is clearly a Roman tax census registration of the kind described in Josephus and that Egyptian tax –demand we sometimes get cited as evidence. Tribute does not = a Tax census. You just ignore all of this and blandly say that I don’t corroborate anything.

Again you denying facts doesn't actually negate them. Seems you think we should take your words for everything you assert, without providing ANY proof. Sorry but I have studied this for over 45 years and I've seen all the ploys of unbelievers. It has never worked on me and those who KNOW, and still doesn't. You may have heard of the old adage, "put up or shut up"?

It is easy to just ignore evidence, say you are not convinced and regard that as proof that you are right. Gadara is not the same as Gergesa and neither are the same as Gerasa. That is the fact whether you accept it or not. It also accepted everywhere except in your posts that Jerash = Gerasa. Here it seems that numbers and the general view doesn't count at all with you. That Gerasa is not Gadara, means that Luke mistook the town. He also mistook Jesus’ route.

Not what I referred to, so please don't start equivocating. read you own post where you said; "when one becomes aware of how unreliable and contradictory the Gospel stories are"

I beg your pardon. It most certainly was what you referred to as you posted on just that subject – which you brought up; I wasn’t even talking about Gadara except to say it wasn’t the same as Gerasa.

Why is subjective and not relevant. Unless you can SHOW proof that there wasn't, then there is no reason for me or ANY believer to doubt the accurate historical account presented in the gospels.

Well, there we are. Faith –based bias, pure and simple. You have NO evidence for a road running along the Samarian border. The map you posted shows one going directly north –south. But just because that map you produced as ‘evidence’ doesn’t show such a road doesn’t mean there isn’t one - according to you. And substantiate your case? why should you? Imaginary claims and denial will do fine.

You recognize your own MO do you?...You mean like yourself? …So you DON'T read with an open mind? You simpley deny and spout your own POV, without proof?

Pot –kettle chat and no mistake. You have produced not a shred of evidence that stands up for a moment but rely on invented claims about Herodian taxes and roads that don't exist on the map you produced and denial of what I have produced.

Faith leads to God and freedom from bias, but when you are biased it leads nowhere.

Oh, please.

Josephus was NOT a first hand account, which you have already acknowledged, so it is obvious you can't make up your mind what you will or won't accept, except as it relates to supporting your own bias.

He is more first hand than anyone else. He was there at the time. The gospels –writers were not. Demonstrably so. Because of many many example of Gospel fabrication, contradiction and absurdity, never mind unreliability.

And all the efforts of the apologists to try to make a case out of denial, the overworked rejection of ‘negative evidence’ and a whole heap of bias accusations that clearly better apply to themselves have produced nothing but no evidence piled on faith based rejection of anything that refutes the Bible.

Therefore to use your own reasoning/rational, neither does your response. You have NOT shown any facts, just unsupported assertions.

And there you are. Evidence is ignored and dismissed as ‘unsupported assertion’ and pure invention is held up as evidence.

I'm showing you what credible and credentialed scholars state.

Which you ignore totally when it doesn't suit you, like Gerasa being Jerash. So far you haven’t shown anything but a couple of sites that grossly misrepresent the evidence or fiddle it to try to make it say what it doesn’t say. Trying to buy the argument with numbers or certificates has never been valid and it isn’t valid here.

Deny it at your own peril.

Oooooo ]And what Peril do you threaten me with? Report me to the Mods or just stick pins in a wax model of me? No wonder I keep coming back. This place is so much fun.

[StanJP]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Nor does ignoring evidence and good reason to doubt. There is some mileage in the suggestion that there were only a few 2 year olds in Bethlehem and so an atrocity of that kind might have been unknown to history, though Josephus does seem to have heard of most of what Herod did, and it really isn’t legitimate to dismiss as no evidence the fact that Josephus didn’t know about it. Because the additional evidence is that none of the other gospels know about it. They don’t know about any of Matthew’s story. Indeed Luke refutes it by having the family go back to Nazareth a week or so later.
The Bible is clearly NOT reliable and you reject it on the rather feeble appeal to ‘just because nobody knows about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen’ excuse and persistently ignore the pretty clear evidence that the stories conflict totally. And you talk to me about bias?

Well I haven't seen ANY so far from YOU, but please, let me know when you have some. Those who have studied it, KNOW it is wholly reliable.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You are. Herod might have paid tribute – I would like to see the evidence for that – but what is being made up is a Roman –style census – count to assess tax and carried out by a Roman official – Quirinus - the same one who would be conducting the 6 AD census described in both books by Josephus. And as if that wasn’t unlikely enough (never mind there being NO evidence for it whatsoever) there is a Judas leading a revolt against that tax census. And Josephus mentions nothing about it all. And of course, neither do the other gospels.

He DID, and if you really knew what you claim to know, you would know that. The fact that you don't equate it to Roman Taxes just shows your bias, unless you think Herod didn't collect ANY taxes and was independently wealthy? I suggest you actually take the time to read everything Josephus did write, because you appear to not remember much of what you say you've read.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

With not a scrap of evidence for it, making stuff up’ is mild. In denial of the improbability of the claim and the (negative – admittedly) evidence of Josephus, I can think of worse descriptions.

As only YOU seem to be the arbiter of what is improbable, I'll pass on your opinion thanks. IMO, it all happened as depicted, including Herod's taxing of His people for himself and Rome. Though I'm sure you'll deny it's validity, read the following;
King Herod the Great

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Credible articles? One apparently tried to argue that the two accounts of the tax census and revolt were different events, one in 6 AD and one in Herod’s time, when they were clearly the same event, 6 AD. The other tried to fiddle ‘Own city’ to mean ‘ancestral city’. These are not ‘credible sites’ These are apologetics sites trying to deceive people into thinking that there is no contradiction between the two nativities – by fiddling and misrepresenting the evidence.

Yes, and why use 'apparently' unless you INTEND on equivocating? Credible is NOT up to you thankfully.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

And the only two sites I have seen looking at the 'argument that Luke is talking about a tax census before Quirinus became governor' both agree that this is grammatically improbable Greek and the usual 'WHEN he was governor' (6 AD) is the right one. That alone completely scuppers the whole 'Herodian tax' claim.

and yet you seem unable to post a quote or cite the opinion your express. That in itself makes you lack any credulity whatsoever.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

As to Josephus, I am inclined to give him as much credit as say a Roman or Greek historian for the events of their time, but the further back they go the more legendary it seems to get. What more do you expect from me?

Well that's good, then go and actually read ALL he wrote to gain a clear perspective of this and other issues brought up here. As I've shown above, you seem to lack a lot of facts about what he DID write.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Yes. Refute is to take claims that are without substance or relevance or are fiddling and misrepresenting the evidence and show them up as without validity.

and just what dictionary did you use to get this definition?
Refute means; prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
No as you have not PROVEN anything but simply deny facts in evidence and assert facts NOT in evidence, this is nothing more than you opining, and badly at that.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

What do you want? Judea was part of Herod’s client kingdom. This is fact. You say Herod paid tribute. I don’t deny that, but YOU don’t substantiate that. I point to what Luke says in his nativity which is clearly a Roman tax census registration of the kind described in Josephus and that Egyptian tax –demand we sometimes get cited as evidence. Tribute does not = a Tax census. You just ignore all of this and blandly say that I don’t corroborate anything.

You tried to previously, and you still equivocate about it, so I'll stick with my assessment. Taxes collected then paid as tribute are still taxes.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It is easy to just ignore evidence, say you are not convinced and regard that as proof that you are right. Gadara is not the same as Gergesa and neither are the same as Gerasa. That is the fact whether you accept it or not. It also accepted everywhere except in your posts that Jerash = Gerasa. Here it seems that numbers and the general view doesn't count at all with you. That Gerasa is not Gadara, means that Luke mistook the town. He also mistook Jesus’ route.

Now you're just arguing about semantics on something NOT relevant. All you have is your OWN opinion, despite clear map evidence that Galilee and Samaria had a common border.
Large Map of Jesus' Ministry

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I beg your pardon. It most certainly was what you referred to as you posted on just that subject – which you brought up; I wasn’t even talking about Gadara except to say it wasn’t the same as Gerasa.

and now you reverse yourself? Hmmmm?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Well, there we are. Faith –based bias, pure and simple. You have NO evidence for a road running along the Samarian border. The map you posted shows one going directly north –south. But just because that map you produced as ‘evidence’ doesn’t show such a road doesn’t mean there isn’t one - according to you. And substantiate your case? why should you? Imaginary claims and denial will do fine.

Now you're going to use MY arguments against me? I've already supplied maps, but sadly more won't change your mind because you are convinced you are right and everyone else who IS a believer is wrong. In that case I can't make you see or consider the evidence obviously, but I will post links for others to see. Jesus Gospel Ministry Maps

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Pot –kettle chat and no mistake. You have produced not a shred of evidence that stands up for a moment but rely on invented claims about Herodian taxes and roads that don't exist on the map you produced and denial of what I have produced.

Not quite, as I have linked to MANY evidences, for which you sadly deny. Claims are only good if they are confirmed, which I have done, and you have not, so it is quite EVIDENT who is making things up.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Oh, please.

I'd pay attention to your own cognitive dissonance if I were you...it's trying to tell you something.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

He is more first hand than anyone else. He was there at the time. The gospels –writers were not. Demonstrably so. Because of many many example of Gospel fabrication, contradiction and absurdity, never mind unreliability.

He either is or isn't. No such thing as more, except maybe for your own biased purposes.
As he was born 7 years after Jesus died, it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to be first hand. That you deny those who actually were first hand is not surprising nor unexpected given your own personal lack of belief or commitment.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

And all the efforts of the apologists to try to make a case out of denial, the overworked rejection of ‘negative evidence’ and a whole heap of bias accusations that clearly better apply to themselves have produced nothing but no evidence piled on faith based rejection of anything that refutes the Bible.

As that is NOT the reality here, but only in your dreams and ambitions, your assertions have already been refuted in this regard.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

And there you are. Evidence is ignored and dismissed as ‘unsupported assertion’ and pure invention is held up as evidence.

Deny all you want, but until you actually DO supply evidence, your opining means very little in the grand scheme of history. Jesus was and is, as is His written words and the Bible.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Which you ignore totally when it doesn't suit you, like Gerasa being Jerash. So far you haven’t shown anything but a couple of sites that grossly misrepresent the evidence or fiddle it to try to make it say what it doesn’t say. Trying to buy the argument with numbers or certificates has never been valid and it isn’t valid here.

That is NOT an issue, except maybe for you to hang your hat on, and as you LOOK for any issue to support your bias, it only goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

And what Peril do you threaten me with? Report me to the Mods or just stick pins in a wax model of me? No wonder I keep coming back. This place is so much fun.

There no reason to report you to the mods and I ignore those who are infantile in their responses, unlike you. I'm sure you know what peril I refer to, regardless as to whether you believe in it or not.
ever heard of Pascal's Wager? You may do well to take it.

[Aristotle's Child]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Considering that practically every trained scholar on the planet, to use Bart Ehrman's words, believes that Jesus existed and was crucified, and that many scholars recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Christ, which has been the subject of my posting on this thread, your statement is shown to be false. Scholars believe this based on historical evidence. Simply refer to post #42.

RESPONSE:

"...and that many scholars recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Christ,"

Thank yuou for phrasing that claim as you did. 'They "believed" they saw...." Of course, we only have Paul's word for that from a letter he wrote the the Corinthians who live a long way from Jerusalem many years after the supposed event. And Paul wasn't an eyewitness. Yet the only record of this claim is in Paul's Epistle. And up until 40 years after the supposed vision of the risen Jesus, nobody had written anything about it. Does that seem likely?

In our own day we have many claims of Elvis being seen alive very soon after his death, and it didn't take long for those stories to develop.

Perhaps neither claim is true???

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It's sorta hard for me to read a book like the bible and not suppose that it was intended to be taken as literal fact. However, if everyone took your view of it the arguments we have would be totally different - e.g are the examples and recommendations in the Bible good ones, or do other philosophies and moralities make better ones? I suggest they do.

Yup. Fact remains it was not intended to be taken literally. You can suggest all you want. You have been suggesting for a long time now and quite frankly its too thin. Yours is anti religion for revenge. You have spite as a weapon. that's just the way it is you.

When we compare the morals you make up to the bible you will see most of them in there already. The church fathers intended for religion to grow up and change what we needed to change as we learn more. They underestimated stupid.

You have to make it literal just like eubis has to make it literal to support your two world views as the only logical choices.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

RESPONSE:

"...and that many scholars recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Christ,"

Thank yuou for phrasing that claim as you did. 'They "believed" they saw...." Of course, we only have Paul's word for that from a letter he wrote the the Corinthians who live a long way from Jerusalem many years after the supposed event. And Paul wasn't an eyewitness. Yet the only record of this claim is in Paul's Epistle. And up until 40 years after the supposed vision of the risen Jesus, nobody had written anything about it. Does that seem likely?

In our own day we have many claims of Elvis being seen alive very soon after his death, and it didn't take long for those stories to develop.

Perhaps neither claim is true???

No, we do not only have Paul's word for that. Despite the fact that you still do not understand after having had it explained to you at least two other times on this thread, that what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a pre-Pauline tradition from the beginning of the church. It precedes the Gospels and it precedes Paul. Whether you like it or not, and whether you understand it or not, scholars recognize this. Christians from the beginning believed they saw the risen Christ. And the best explanation for why they believed it is because Jesus was in fact resurrected and really did appear to them. The naturalistic explanations that have been given in the past to explain why the disciples saw the risen Christ, and which scholars are moving away from are simply not valid.

And this article explains why such explanations as hallucinations don't cut it.

https://warrantedbelief.wordpress.co...ection-part-3/

This is part 3. You can access the other parts of the article from the link.

[303Guy]

I'm seeing references to Josephus quit often in this thread. If it's Flavious Josephus, the Jewish historian then he could not have been a witness to any of the events mentioned. He may have known about Jesus and indeed wrote about him but he was born after the death of Jesus (assuming Jesus was 32 at the time of his execution).

It is in Antiquities that he mentions Christ. The mention is called the "Testimonium Flavianum" (Ant. 18.63-64, see below). Josephus was born in Jerusalem around A.D. 37. He died around the year 101.

The problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus and some say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus' documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes.

https://carm.org/regarding-quotes-hi...us-about-jesus

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by StanJP

Well I haven't seen ANY so far from YOU, but please, let me know when you have some. Those who have studied it, KNOW it is wholly reliable.




He DID, and if you really knew what you claim to know, you would know that. The fact that you don't equate it to Roman Taxes just shows your bias, unless you think Herod didn't collect ANY taxes and was independently wealthy? I suggest you actually take the time to read everything Josephus did write, because you appear to not remember much of what you say you've read.



As only YOU seem to be the arbiter of what is improbable, I'll pass on your opinion thanks. IMO, it all happened as depicted, including Herod's taxing of His people for himself and Rome. Though I'm sure you'll deny it's validity, read the following;
King Herod the Great



Yes, and why use 'apparently' unless you INTEND on equivocating? Credible is NOT up to you thankfully.



and yet you seem unable to post a quote or cite the opinion your express. That in itself makes you lack any credulity whatsoever.



Well that's good, then go and actually read ALL he wrote to gain a clear perspective of this and other issues brought up here. As I've shown above, you seem to lack a lot of facts about what he DID write.



and just what dictionary did you use to get this definition?
Refute means; prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
No as you have not PROVEN anything but simply deny facts in evidence and assert facts NOT in evidence, this is nothing more than you opining, and badly at that.



You tried to previously, and you still equivocate about it, so I'll stick with my assessment. Taxes collected then paid as tribute are still taxes.



Now you're just arguing about semantics on something NOT relevant. All you have is your OWN opinion, despite clear map evidence that Galilee and Samaria had a common border.
Large Map of Jesus' Ministry




and now you reverse yourself? Hmmmm?



Now you're going to use MY arguments against me? I've already supplied maps, but sadly more won't change your mind because you are convinced you are right and everyone else who IS a believer is wrong. In that case I can't make you see or consider the evidence obviously, but I will post links for others to see. Jesus Gospel Ministry Maps



Not quite, as I have linked to MANY evidences, for which you sadly deny. Claims are only good if they are confirmed, which I have done, and you have not, so it is quite EVIDENT who is making things up.



I'd pay attention to your own cognitive dissonance if I were you...it's trying to tell you something.



He either is or isn't. No such thing as more, except maybe for your own biased purposes.
As he was born 7 years after Jesus died, it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to be first hand. That you deny those who actually were first hand is not surprising nor unexpected given your own personal lack of belief or commitment.



As that is NOT the reality here, but only in your dreams and ambitions, your assertions have already been refuted in this regard.



Deny all you want, but until you actually DO supply evidence, your opining means very little in the grand scheme of history. Jesus was and is, as is His written words and the Bible.



That is NOT an issue, except maybe for you to hang your hat on, and as you LOOK for any issue to support your bias, it only goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day.



There no reason to report you to the mods and I ignore those who are infantile in their responses, unlike you. I'm sure you know what peril I refer to, regardless as to whether you believe in it or not.
ever heard of Pascal's Wager? You may do well to take it.

There is nothing here. Nothing whatsoever. I have sorta lost track. But the discussion was mainly about the Nativity discrepancy. I have presented good reasons to doubt them. Mainly Matthew's is set in King Herod's time. Luke's in what appears to be the 6 AD census of Qurinus. Attempts to show that it is a Tax census in Herod's life fail. You haven't even validated your claim that Herod paid tribute. From all I heard, client kingdoms got funded by Rome. Never mind any shred of evidence for a Roman tax census conducted by Quirinus.

Even then there is no reason for Joseph to sign on in Bethlehem rather than Sepphoris of Capernaum, let alone drag Mary along. The only purpose is to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem. That in fact is only thing Matthew and Mark agree on.

They don't even agree on where they lived. In Matthew they live in Bethlehem and relocate to Nazareth to avoid Archelaus. In Luke they live in Nazareth and go back there as soon as the circumcision rites are done. No trip to Egypt. No Herodian threat.

Do I need to labour the case? Mark doesn't have a nativity at all. Nor does John. In fact 7.42 is close to saying that John knows that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem - but according to scripture, he should have been. That is why Luke and Matthew wrote contradictory accounts: to put that right.

It is a touchstone case to show that the Gospels are not reliable and the Resurrection accounts are just as bad. And written for the same reason: the empty tomb would not do. Jesus had to be seen shanking round full of holes. So three contradictory stories were written to put that omission right.

Now, you old chum and anyone else is welcome to try to refute this, but you haven't produced a shred of credible refutation. And on this showing I truly doubt that you will.

P.s Ah..the good ol' hellthreat. Ever heard of the Reverse Pascal's wager? Love to explain it to you sometime.