Historical Jesus: The unchanging reality of the New Testament record.

[Foxfyre]

But he refers to correspondence with and meetings with various of Jesus' disciples even if he wasn't always completely theologically aligned with them, especially Peter. Remember it was only roughly 40 years between Jesus' death and 70 A.D. And many of the people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion were still alive in 70 A.D. The chances of there being a great deal of embellishment or for any mythology to develop just isn't all that plausible for me.

The later writings, most especially the authoritarian "gospels' were, IMO, obviously edited together to be theological statements of what the writers perceived to be important to know and understand about the historical Jesus and what he taught. Essentially every bit of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke so they both obviously copied from that manuscript. John is entirely different from all the others and is its own work. And none make much effort to provide a historical documentary and it is obvious, to me anyway, they did not intend those manuscripts to serve that purpose.

There's no evidence the supernatural events happened, at all. Just because someone wrote something down and it was copied doesn't make it true. If the rabbi or person Jesus was based on was crucified it didn't happen the biblical way.

There's no mention anywhere that many were raised from the dead and walked around, no evidence of day into night. No mention of the Temple drapes being rendered in half. No earthquake. Nobody alive in 70 AD could have confirmed what didn't happen.

And there is no evidence that they DIDN'T happen either. Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived? He was a generation or two ahead of Jesus , but otherwise contemporaries. All we know about him is that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the history books. How reliable are they? Certainly there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some mythology included in all that.

All we know about Jesus and that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the Biblical texts and history books. How reliable are they? Here too there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some literary license included in all that.

What we now about either we take on faith. I believe in Julius Caesar because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the historical Jesus because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the risen Christ because he is real and has changed me and billions of others.

I just supplied some evidence. None of the extraordinary events at the crucifixion happened. Josephus was the Jewish historian and wrote in minutia about daily living. He was a contemporary and wouldn't have mentioned anything? Philo was prolific as well, knew many of the characters, like Herod. No mention either.

If it was said Caesar died and these supernatural events happened, we could believe a Caesar lived but with no mention anywhere else of the events we should dismiss them. Belief doesn't prove anything. Many believe in the Allah of the Koran andd it changed their lives too. I was a Christian for 20 plus years so I know how it works. You believe because it's true, it's true because you believe it....

No you didn't provide any evidence. You weren't there. None of us were. You are providing a source that says what you choose to believe. But that is not evidence. It is only an indication of or support for what might have or probably happened. But to believe it you have to take it on faith that what you read is what happened.

I can point to other sources that tell a different story and draw different conclusions.

And neither you nor I can show how our source is more credible or authoritarian than the other.

It is a matter of faith developed via our own sense of logic, reason, deductiion, or what just seems most plausible to me. If you don't believe in miracles, then you are likely to believe Jesus didn't perform any, etc. But it is a matter of faith just the same.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived?

Julius Caesar wrote Memoirs of his military campaigns. This was quite common practice in Rome and his are not the only ones to have survived.

* The Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War), campaigns in Gallia and Britannia during his term as proconsul; and
* The Commentarii de Bello Civili (Commentaries on the Civil War), events of the Civil War until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Caesar's writings are studied in Latin classes to this day. They are studied because he was just writing about daily events of what transpired He wasn't inventing "miracles" just reporting on what occurred.

Those writings alone are hard physical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived?

Julius Caesar wrote Memoirs of his military campaigns. This was quite common practice in Rome and his are not the only ones to have survived.

* The Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War), campaigns in Gallia and Britannia during his term as proconsul; and
* The Commentarii de Bello Civili (Commentaries on the Civil War), events of the Civil War until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Caesar's writings are studied in Latin classes to this day.

Those writings alone are hard physical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.

Really? Show me the proof that he wrote them instead of somebody else writing them under his name.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived?

Julius Caesar wrote Memoirs of his military campaigns. This was quite common practice in Rome and his are not the only ones to have survived.

* The Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War), campaigns in Gallia and Britannia during his term as proconsul; and
* The Commentarii de Bello Civili (Commentaries on the Civil War), events of the Civil War until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Caesar's writings are studied in Latin classes to this day.

Those writings alone are hard physical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.

Really? Show me the proof that he wrote them instead of somebody else writing them under his name.

The works of Julius Caesar have been studied by many scholars and it is possible to identify someone by their writing style. If you wish to dispute the references below you are more than welcome to do so but I will trust the legions secular scholars over someone with a religious agenda.

Julius Caesar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Literary works
During his lifetime, Caesar was regarded as one of the best orators and prose authors in Latin — even Cicero spoke highly of Caesar's rhetoric and style.[137] Only Caesar's war commentaries have survived. A few sentences from other works are quoted by other authors. Among his lost works are his funeral oration for his paternal aunt Julia and his Anticato, a document written to defame Cato in response to Cicero's published praise. Poems by Julius Caesar are also mentioned in ancient sources.[138]

Memoirs

A 1783 edition of The Gallic Wars​

• • The Commentarii de Bello Gallico, usually known in English as The Gallic Wars, seven books each covering one year of his campaigns in Gaul and southern Britain in the 50s BC, with the eighth book written by Aulus Hirtius on the last two years.
  • The Commentarii de Bello Civili (The Civil War), events of the Civil War from Caesar's perspective, until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Now explain how scholars are able to differentiate between the first seven campaign books and the eighth book?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it was something like 1977 or 1978, I was coaching a high school formal debate team as we prepared for the topic of "Did Shakespeare write his plays?" I remember being excited about it because I was sick of debating all the political stuff and though this was one we could really have fun with. I love Shakespeare and had the best English teacher anybody could hope for in my senior year in High School. She really brought it alive for me.

But then in the late 70's, the first thing that surprised me was how little we could find on the life of William Shakespeare himself. And what we did find was to seriously call into question whether he indeed could have written the plays attributed to him. In other words the "No" side of the argument was much easier to develop than was the "Yes" side.

So I was really tickled to see the BBC effort to unravel that mystery three or so years ago. There is a very entertaining short essay on that here raising much of the same questions we ran into more than 30 years before:
Did Shakespeare Really Write His Plays A Few Theories Examined Anglophenia BBC America

 

[Foxfyre]

Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived?

Julius Caesar wrote Memoirs of his military campaigns. This was quite common practice in Rome and his are not the only ones to have survived.

* The Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War), campaigns in Gallia and Britannia during his term as proconsul; and
* The Commentarii de Bello Civili (Commentaries on the Civil War), events of the Civil War until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Caesar's writings are studied in Latin classes to this day.

Those writings alone are hard physical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.

Really? Show me the proof that he wrote them instead of somebody else writing them under his name.

The works of Julius Caesar have been studied by many scholars and it is possible to identify someone by their writing style. If you wish to dispute the references below you are more than welcome to do so but I will trust the legions secular scholars over someone with a religious agenda.

Julius Caesar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Literary works
During his lifetime, Caesar was regarded as one of the best orators and prose authors in Latin — even Cicero spoke highly of Caesar's rhetoric and style.[137] Only Caesar's war commentaries have survived. A few sentences from other works are quoted by other authors. Among his lost works are his funeral oration for his paternal aunt Julia and his Anticato, a document written to defame Cato in response to Cicero's published praise. Poems by Julius Caesar are also mentioned in ancient sources.[138]

Memoirs

A 1783 edition of The Gallic Wars​

• • The Commentarii de Bello Gallico, usually known in English as The Gallic Wars, seven books each covering one year of his campaigns in Gaul and southern Britain in the 50s BC, with the eighth book written by Aulus Hirtius on the last two years.
  • The Commentarii de Bello Civili (The Civil War), events of the Civil War from Caesar's perspective, until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Now explain how scholars are able to differentiate between the first seven campaign books and the eighth book?

You still haven't shown me that these documents or writings are authentic, that they are accurate, or that they weren't manufactured out of whole cloth. Trust me, I am a scholar on the life and times of Julius Caesar and I have no reason to believe he did not exist. But I can't prove it. And neither can you.

 

[Iceweasel]

But he refers to correspondence with and meetings with various of Jesus' disciples even if he wasn't always completely theologically aligned with them, especially Peter. Remember it was only roughly 40 years between Jesus' death and 70 A.D. And many of the people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion were still alive in 70 A.D. The chances of there being a great deal of embellishment or for any mythology to develop just isn't all that plausible for me.

The later writings, most especially the authoritarian "gospels' were, IMO, obviously edited together to be theological statements of what the writers perceived to be important to know and understand about the historical Jesus and what he taught. Essentially every bit of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke so they both obviously copied from that manuscript. John is entirely different from all the others and is its own work. And none make much effort to provide a historical documentary and it is obvious, to me anyway, they did not intend those manuscripts to serve that purpose.

There's no evidence the supernatural events happened, at all. Just because someone wrote something down and it was copied doesn't make it true. If the rabbi or person Jesus was based on was crucified it didn't happen the biblical way.

There's no mention anywhere that many were raised from the dead and walked around, no evidence of day into night. No mention of the Temple drapes being rendered in half. No earthquake. Nobody alive in 70 AD could have confirmed what didn't happen.

And there is no evidence that they DIDN'T happen either. Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived? He was a generation or two ahead of Jesus , but otherwise contemporaries. All we know about him is that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the history books. How reliable are they? Certainly there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some mythology included in all that.

All we know about Jesus and that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the Biblical texts and history books. How reliable are they? Here too there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some literary license included in all that.

What we now about either we take on faith. I believe in Julius Caesar because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the historical Jesus because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the risen Christ because he is real and has changed me and billions of others.

I just supplied some evidence. None of the extraordinary events at the crucifixion happened. Josephus was the Jewish historian and wrote in minutia about daily living. He was a contemporary and wouldn't have mentioned anything? Philo was prolific as well, knew many of the characters, like Herod. No mention either.

If it was said Caesar died and these supernatural events happened, we could believe a Caesar lived but with no mention anywhere else of the events we should dismiss them. Belief doesn't prove anything. Many believe in the Allah of the Koran andd it changed their lives too. I was a Christian for 20 plus years so I know how it works. You believe because it's true, it's true because you believe it....

No you didn't provide any evidence. You weren't there. None of us were. You are providing a source that says what you choose to believe. But that is not evidence. It is only an indication of or support for what might have or probably happened. But to believe it you have to take it on faith that what you read is what happened.

I can point to other sources that tell a different story and draw different conclusions.

And neither you nor I can show how our source is more credible or authoritarian than the other.

It is a matter of faith developed via our own sense of logic, reason, deductiion, or what just seems most plausible to me. If you don't believe in miracles, then you are likely to believe Jesus didn't perform any, etc. But it is a matter of faith just the same.

No, I didn't provide any source. I said there was no source to back up the claims when it would have been recorded. And no, you can't point to ANY source that backs up the biblical claims, I researched it for 20 years and would have stumbled across it. I imagine it would have been passed around a bit. It's ridiculous to say neither Philo nor Josephus would have mentioned a bunch of risen formerly dead people walking around. It was a small area, it would have made the evening news.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim it requires faith to not believe supernatural stories. There's no logic to it. Jesus didn't write anything down? He relied on some guy he never met to explain the big picture to people that lived with Jesus and followed him around? The more you think the less credible it is. It makes no sense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived?

Julius Caesar wrote Memoirs of his military campaigns. This was quite common practice in Rome and his are not the only ones to have survived.

* The Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War), campaigns in Gallia and Britannia during his term as proconsul; and
* The Commentarii de Bello Civili (Commentaries on the Civil War), events of the Civil War until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Caesar's writings are studied in Latin classes to this day.

Those writings alone are hard physical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.

Really? Show me the proof that he wrote them instead of somebody else writing them under his name.

The works of Julius Caesar have been studied by many scholars and it is possible to identify someone by their writing style. If you wish to dispute the references below you are more than welcome to do so but I will trust the legions secular scholars over someone with a religious agenda.

Julius Caesar - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Literary works
During his lifetime, Caesar was regarded as one of the best orators and prose authors in Latin — even Cicero spoke highly of Caesar's rhetoric and style.[137] Only Caesar's war commentaries have survived. A few sentences from other works are quoted by other authors. Among his lost works are his funeral oration for his paternal aunt Julia and his Anticato, a document written to defame Cato in response to Cicero's published praise. Poems by Julius Caesar are also mentioned in ancient sources.[138]

Memoirs

A 1783 edition of The Gallic Wars​

• • The Commentarii de Bello Gallico, usually known in English as The Gallic Wars, seven books each covering one year of his campaigns in Gaul and southern Britain in the 50s BC, with the eighth book written by Aulus Hirtius on the last two years.
  • The Commentarii de Bello Civili (The Civil War), events of the Civil War from Caesar's perspective, until immediately after Pompey's death in Egypt.

Now explain how scholars are able to differentiate between the first seven campaign books and the eighth book?

You still haven't shown me that these documents or writings are authentic, that they are accurate, or that they weren't manufactured out of whole cloth. Trust me, I am a scholar on the life and times of Julius Caesar and I have no reason to believe he did not exist. But I can't prove it. And neither can you.

Given that inane illogic you can't prove that you exist either. There is no record of anyone called "FoxFyre" that exists outside of this forum. The posts themselves could have been written by anyone. The lack of hard evidence outside for your existence cannot be found anywhere ergo you don't actually exist according to your own puerile argument.

And yes, if I was dumb enough to apply that to myself then I don't exist either. But I am just not that stupid.

When there is factual corroborated evidence following accepted scientific disciplines for identifying authors based upon their writing style and the writings of their contemporaries then yes, they did exist. We separate out fact from fiction by applying these principles. Do we have hard evidence that the Romans conquered what was known as their empire? Why yes, we do, in the form of roads, buildings and aquaducts. We have contemporary writers of the period who documented that there were a succession of Caesars. We have coins and statues of them.

So I accept the hard evidence as factual because it has been rigorously and independently verified and because knowledge is build upon the works of scholars who have been peer reviewed.

Too bad we can't same the same thing for your illogical inanity.

 

[Foxfyre]

But he refers to correspondence with and meetings with various of Jesus' disciples even if he wasn't always completely theologically aligned with them, especially Peter. Remember it was only roughly 40 years between Jesus' death and 70 A.D. And many of the people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion were still alive in 70 A.D. The chances of there being a great deal of embellishment or for any mythology to develop just isn't all that plausible for me.

The later writings, most especially the authoritarian "gospels' were, IMO, obviously edited together to be theological statements of what the writers perceived to be important to know and understand about the historical Jesus and what he taught. Essentially every bit of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke so they both obviously copied from that manuscript. John is entirely different from all the others and is its own work. And none make much effort to provide a historical documentary and it is obvious, to me anyway, they did not intend those manuscripts to serve that purpose.

There's no evidence the supernatural events happened, at all. Just because someone wrote something down and it was copied doesn't make it true. If the rabbi or person Jesus was based on was crucified it didn't happen the biblical way.

There's no mention anywhere that many were raised from the dead and walked around, no evidence of day into night. No mention of the Temple drapes being rendered in half. No earthquake. Nobody alive in 70 AD could have confirmed what didn't happen.

And there is no evidence that they DIDN'T happen either. Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived? He was a generation or two ahead of Jesus , but otherwise contemporaries. All we know about him is that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the history books. How reliable are they? Certainly there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some mythology included in all that.

All we know about Jesus and that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the Biblical texts and history books. How reliable are they? Here too there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some literary license included in all that.

What we now about either we take on faith. I believe in Julius Caesar because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the historical Jesus because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the risen Christ because he is real and has changed me and billions of others.

I just supplied some evidence. None of the extraordinary events at the crucifixion happened. Josephus was the Jewish historian and wrote in minutia about daily living. He was a contemporary and wouldn't have mentioned anything? Philo was prolific as well, knew many of the characters, like Herod. No mention either.

If it was said Caesar died and these supernatural events happened, we could believe a Caesar lived but with no mention anywhere else of the events we should dismiss them. Belief doesn't prove anything. Many believe in the Allah of the Koran andd it changed their lives too. I was a Christian for 20 plus years so I know how it works. You believe because it's true, it's true because you believe it....

No you didn't provide any evidence. You weren't there. None of us were. You are providing a source that says what you choose to believe. But that is not evidence. It is only an indication of or support for what might have or probably happened. But to believe it you have to take it on faith that what you read is what happened.

I can point to other sources that tell a different story and draw different conclusions.

And neither you nor I can show how our source is more credible or authoritarian than the other.

It is a matter of faith developed via our own sense of logic, reason, deductiion, or what just seems most plausible to me. If you don't believe in miracles, then you are likely to believe Jesus didn't perform any, etc. But it is a matter of faith just the same.

No, I didn't provide any source. I said there was no source to back up the claims when it would have been recorded. And no, you can't point to ANY source that backs up the biblical claims, I researched it for 20 years and would have stumbled across it. I imagine it would have been passed around a bit. It's ridiculous to say neither Philo nor Josephus would have mentioned a bunch of risen formerly dead people walking around. It was a small area, it would have made the evening news.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim it requires faith to not believe supernatural stories. There's no logic to it. Jesus didn't write anything down? He relied on some guy he never met to explain the big picture to people that lived with Jesus and followed him around? The more you think the less credible it is. It makes no sense.

Of course it requires faith. I believe in miracles. I believe I have witnessed miracles. So it comes naturally to me to believe Jesus, who I believe to be God, could perform miracles. But evenso, the historical Jesus I have to take on faith because I wasn't there and all I know of that historical Jesus is what others have taught me through the scriptures or other sources.

And you weren't there either, so your belief that the supernatural did not occur is based on faith resulting from your own choice and experience. But there is nothing you can show as proof that your belief is right, and you don't have any personal experience, so what you believe about it is a matter of faith.

 

[Iceweasel]

Of course it requires faith. I believe in miracles. I believe I have witnessed miracles. So it comes naturally to me to believe Jesus, who I believe to be God, could perform miracles. But evenso, the historical Jesus I have to take on faith because I wasn't there and all I know of that historical Jesus is what others have taught me through the scriptures or other sources.

And you weren't there either, so your belief that the supernatural did not occur is based on faith resulting from your own choice and experience. But there is nothing you can show as proof that your belief is right, and you don't have any personal experience, so what you believe about it is a matter of faith.

Repeating an error doesn't make it true. I gave you over a half dozen serious problems you have no answer for and all you do is tell me I have faith. That's dishonest!

You misuse the word faith to prop up a story that makes no sense, has no evidence when there should be, is inconsistent, inaccurate and many errors traced back to earlier translations.

Just try to answer a few questions.
Jesus didn't write anything down because.....
Jesus needed Saul to explain the message to the disciples 30 years later because Jesus couldn't get through to them...why?

 

[Derideo_Te]

There's no evidence the supernatural events happened, at all. Just because someone wrote something down and it was copied doesn't make it true. If the rabbi or person Jesus was based on was crucified it didn't happen the biblical way.

There's no mention anywhere that many were raised from the dead and walked around, no evidence of day into night. No mention of the Temple drapes being rendered in half. No earthquake. Nobody alive in 70 AD could have confirmed what didn't happen.

And there is no evidence that they DIDN'T happen either. Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived? He was a generation or two ahead of Jesus , but otherwise contemporaries. All we know about him is that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the history books. How reliable are they? Certainly there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some mythology included in all that.

All we know about Jesus and that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the Biblical texts and history books. How reliable are they? Here too there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some literary license included in all that.

What we now about either we take on faith. I believe in Julius Caesar because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the historical Jesus because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the risen Christ because he is real and has changed me and billions of others.

I just supplied some evidence. None of the extraordinary events at the crucifixion happened. Josephus was the Jewish historian and wrote in minutia about daily living. He was a contemporary and wouldn't have mentioned anything? Philo was prolific as well, knew many of the characters, like Herod. No mention either.

If it was said Caesar died and these supernatural events happened, we could believe a Caesar lived but with no mention anywhere else of the events we should dismiss them. Belief doesn't prove anything. Many believe in the Allah of the Koran andd it changed their lives too. I was a Christian for 20 plus years so I know how it works. You believe because it's true, it's true because you believe it....

No you didn't provide any evidence. You weren't there. None of us were. You are providing a source that says what you choose to believe. But that is not evidence. It is only an indication of or support for what might have or probably happened. But to believe it you have to take it on faith that what you read is what happened.

I can point to other sources that tell a different story and draw different conclusions.

And neither you nor I can show how our source is more credible or authoritarian than the other.

It is a matter of faith developed via our own sense of logic, reason, deductiion, or what just seems most plausible to me. If you don't believe in miracles, then you are likely to believe Jesus didn't perform any, etc. But it is a matter of faith just the same.

No, I didn't provide any source. I said there was no source to back up the claims when it would have been recorded. And no, you can't point to ANY source that backs up the biblical claims, I researched it for 20 years and would have stumbled across it. I imagine it would have been passed around a bit. It's ridiculous to say neither Philo nor Josephus would have mentioned a bunch of risen formerly dead people walking around. It was a small area, it would have made the evening news.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim it requires faith to not believe supernatural stories. There's no logic to it. Jesus didn't write anything down? He relied on some guy he never met to explain the big picture to people that lived with Jesus and followed him around? The more you think the less credible it is. It makes no sense.

Of course it requires faith. I believe in miracles. I believe I have witnessed miracles. So it comes naturally to me to believe Jesus, who I believe to be God, could perform miracles. But evenso, the historical Jesus I have to take on faith because I wasn't there and all I know of that historical Jesus is what others have taught me through the scriptures or other sources.

And you weren't there either, so your belief that the supernatural did not occur is based on faith resulting from your own choice and experience. But there is nothing you can show as proof that your belief is right, and you don't have any personal experience, so what you believe about it is a matter of faith.

It isn't a matter of faith to not believe in the Bible.

It is a matter of reason, logic and deduction.

The Bible is riddled with contradictions. Anything that contradicts itself lacks credibility.

Faith requires self deception. Faith requires the suspension of critical thinking faculties. Faith requires accepting as "truth" things that have absolutely no basis in fact.

So yes, your right to your beliefs and faith is protected by the Constitution.

But the rights of others to not have the same beliefs and faiths is also protected in the Constitution.

Furthermore the Constitution protects the right to openly speak out about the contradictions in your beliefs and your faith. It protects the freedom to question why some choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

And that freedom is not based upon faith but reason, logic and deduction.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course it requires faith. I believe in miracles. I believe I have witnessed miracles. So it comes naturally to me to believe Jesus, who I believe to be God, could perform miracles. But evenso, the historical Jesus I have to take on faith because I wasn't there and all I know of that historical Jesus is what others have taught me through the scriptures or other sources.

And you weren't there either, so your belief that the supernatural did not occur is based on faith resulting from your own choice and experience. But there is nothing you can show as proof that your belief is right, and you don't have any personal experience, so what you believe about it is a matter of faith.

Repeating an error doesn't make it true. I gave you over a half dozen serious problems you have no answer for and all you do is tell me I have faith. That's dishonest!

You misuse the word faith to prop up a story that makes no sense, has no evidence when there should be, is inconsistent, inaccurate and many errors traced back to earlier translations.

Just try to answer a few questions.
Jesus didn't write anything down because.....
Jesus needed Saul to explain the message to the disciples 30 years later because Jesus couldn't get through to them...why?

If you have no PROOF to show for your conclusion that your logic and reason is logical and reasonable. So I am supposed to take on faith that your logic and reason is superior to my own? You may be right and I may be wrong or vice versa, but neither of us can PROVE it to the other.

As for why didn't Jesus write anything down? Maybe he did. We don't know do we?. We know we don't have any writing attributed to him. Why did he need Paul? I don't even pretend to know why God chooses the people He used for his purposes. I know they are all imperfect. Some we might think completely inappropriate or unsuitable for the job. I know that they all make mistakes. But invariably they accomplish great things.

My definition of faith is belief or confidence in things unexperienced and unseen and unprovable. What's yours?

 

[Iceweasel]

Of course it requires faith. I believe in miracles. I believe I have witnessed miracles. So it comes naturally to me to believe Jesus, who I believe to be God, could perform miracles. But evenso, the historical Jesus I have to take on faith because I wasn't there and all I know of that historical Jesus is what others have taught me through the scriptures or other sources.

And you weren't there either, so your belief that the supernatural did not occur is based on faith resulting from your own choice and experience. But there is nothing you can show as proof that your belief is right, and you don't have any personal experience, so what you believe about it is a matter of faith.

Repeating an error doesn't make it true. I gave you over a half dozen serious problems you have no answer for and all you do is tell me I have faith. That's dishonest!

You misuse the word faith to prop up a story that makes no sense, has no evidence when there should be, is inconsistent, inaccurate and many errors traced back to earlier translations.

Just try to answer a few questions.
Jesus didn't write anything down because.....
Jesus needed Saul to explain the message to the disciples 30 years later because Jesus couldn't get through to them...why?

If you have no PROOF to show for your conclusion that your logic and reason is logical and reasonable. So I am supposed to take on faith that your logic and reason is superior to my own? You may be right and I may be wrong or vice versa, but neither of us can PROVE it to the other.

As for why didn't Jesus write anything down? Maybe he did. We don't know do we?. We know we don't have any writing attributed to him. Why did he need Paul? I don't even pretend to know why God chooses the people He used for his purposes. I know they are all imperfect. Some we might think completely inappropriate or unsuitable for the job. I know that they all make mistakes. But invariably they accomplish great things.

My definition of faith is belief or confidence in things unexperienced and unseen and unprovable. What's yours?

PROOF is in the mind of the beholder. Someone may not believe in brick walls. You can show it to them. Place their face on it and gently roll it around and they might eventually concede there may be something there but it isn't a brick wall because brick walls don't exist!

Not believing stories isn't faith by any lucid definition, you're playing word games. It requires no faith to not believe in Santa Claus. We believe it as children but then we grow up and ask how he could cover the whole Earth, fly in a sled and get his fat ass down the chimney.

So you think they might have shredded the big guy's words? Or maybe wrapped fish in them? The most important story for mankind and not even any mention of him writing anything? Now that's faith!

Jesus picked the disciples. He didn't know none of them could grasp the message that you arrived at by logic and reason? The more you learn and the more you think for yourself the more faith you will need. If you are honest with yourself you'll eventually run out of faith.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I revel in how much the very mention of Jesus drives Progressives totally batshit crazy; its like Dracula greeting the rising sun while standing in a garlic field

No! Jesus wasn't real! Only Obama is real!!

 

[Foxfyre]

And now gentlemen, since both D_T and Iceweasal seem to becoming more and more agitated and angry and insulting and personally abusive as the discussion goes along, I will take my leave. I enjoy discussing topics like this with people who don't get mad if others don't agree with them. Thank you for understanding. And do have a pleasant evening.

 

[Iceweasel]

And now gentlemen, since both D_T and Iceweasal seem to becoming more and more agitated and angry and insulting and personally abusive as the discussion goes along, I will take my leave. I enjoy discussing topics like this with people who don't get mad if others don't agree with them. Thank you for understanding. And do have a pleasant evening.

You were intellectually dishonest, now you've resorted to outright lies. How Christian of you. What a phoney! Take your leave and spread your lies elsewhere.

I asked simple questions that you can't answer so you get highly defensive, now insulting, smearing and you accused me of having faith for not believing yours! You remind me of exactly why I left Christianity.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And now gentlemen, since both D_T and Iceweasal seem to becoming more and more agitated and angry and insulting and personally abusive as the discussion goes along, I will take my leave. I enjoy discussing topics like this with people who don't get mad if others don't agree with them. Thank you for understanding. And do have a pleasant evening.

Ironic!

 

[irosie91]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Oh I believe there is plenty of evidence. Mostly because the Qumran scrolls exist. And because they in no way call into question any New Testament events as we have them.

The dead sea scrolls call into DEFINITE question the Christian belief (that I have encountered since age six)----that Jesus kinda ----did away with Judaism. Some of the words and comments attributed to Jesus have been "used" in arguments that jesus opposed pharisaiacal Judaism------in fact, the words attributed to him AND his
recorded actions far more robustly indicated that Jesus was a Pharisee jew. I am not suggesting that the writers of the dead sea scrolls were, themselves, specifically Pharisee-----historically---lots of the people who went out for the DESERT life in those days----
were definitely Pharisee------and the essenes, etc----
were only mildly-----OFFSHOOT. The Masada people were ---"out to the desert" jews-----definitely Pharisee

 

[Foxfyre]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Oh I believe there is plenty of evidence. Mostly because the Qumran scrolls exist. And because they in no way call into question any New Testament events as we have them.

The dead sea scrolls call into DEFINITE question the Christian belief (that I have encountered since age six)----that Jesus kinda ----did away with Judaism. Some of the words and comments attributed to Jesus have been "used" in arguments that jesus opposed pharisaiacal Judaism------in fact, the words attributed to him AND his
recorded actions far more robustly indicated that Jesus was a Pharisee jew. I am not suggesting that the writers of the dead sea scrolls were, themselves, specifically Pharisee-----historically---lots of the people who went out for the DESERT life in those days----
were definitely Pharisee------and the essenes, etc----
were only mildly-----OFFSHOOT. The Masada people were ---"out to the desert" jews-----definitely Pharisee

Who the different Jewish sects or divisions were is irrelevant to the Biblical narrative other than to understand who they were and what they believed. So I will stand by my opinion that the Qumran scrolls reinforced the content of the Old Testament as we have it, and in no way disrupted the New Testament narrative.

Serious Bible scholars rarely interpret the texts as literally or in the same way as the more casual reader usually does. And the serious Bible scholar puts more emphasis on the purpose and intent of the different New Testament manuscripts that provide a powerful and provocative message for those who are willing to receive it.

There is more evidence pointing to Jesus and his family being of the Essene sect than to the Pharisees but it may be there was an effort not to assign Jesus to any as he was the Messiah of all. There is plenty of wiggle room in that particular exploration of ancient history.

At any rate, I am confident the Qumran manuscripts reinforce the whole of the Bible much more than they raise additional questions. And in the final analysis, it should be a matter of interesting discussion instead of discontent or feuding and fussing.

 

[Iceweasel]

At any rate, I am confident the Qumran manuscripts reinforce the whole of the Bible much more than they raise additional questions. And in the final analysis, it should be a matter of interesting discussion instead of discontent or feuding and fussing.

Why don't you try to follow your own advice instead of making baseless accusations against people? Not agreeing with you is now contentious and feuding? Not believing in a faith doesn't require any faith, never even heard that one before.