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

[koshergrl]

Well they're different to the death cultists...because if they admit that they happened, they have to accept that they're doomed if they don't accept the gift of salvation...and that there will be a judgement for their actions on earth. People who reject Christ are happy in their belief they'll never be accountable for the truly horrendous sins they commit, because they believe the lie that if society accepts those sins, then they're not really sins..and there will be no reckoning.

What about Hinduism?

What about it?

I like macaroni.

Are hindus doomed to hell?

Ask God.

The bible certainly says they are. That's as close as it gets. Ask which god?

Why would I ask that? I'm only interested in one God.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Well they're different to the death cultists...because if they admit that they happened, they have to accept that they're doomed if they don't accept the gift of salvation...and that there will be a judgement for their actions on earth. People who reject Christ are happy in their belief they'll never be accountable for the truly horrendous sins they commit, because they believe the lie that if society accepts those sins, then they're not really sins..and there will be no reckoning.

I know you believe that, and I also believe that salvation is given through the Christ, though I am not at all convinced there is only one 'right' way to receive that. Believing that a man performed miracles does not automatically extrapolate into believing all the other doctrines put forth by those of the Christian faith.

I never said that it did. I don't know what you mean when you say there are various ways to receive salvation through Christ...I mean, there's only one way that I'm aware of, and that's to accept, believe, confess.

But I believe there is more than one way to accept, believe, confess. And I leave that up to God to decide how it will be done as I do not see that as our prerogative to do. We are given no power to 'save' anybody. Our job is to arrange the meeting, but we should always let God take it from there.

I just wish christians would do what jesus actually said and followed his teachings, not vehemently hate the poor like most christians on this website.

I wish com

No. I'm simply stating facts.

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Well they're different to the death cultists...because if they admit that they happened, they have to accept that they're doomed if they don't accept the gift of salvation...and that there will be a judgement for their actions on earth. People who reject Christ are happy in their belief they'll never be accountable for the truly horrendous sins they commit, because they believe the lie that if society accepts those sins, then they're not really sins..and there will be no reckoning.

I know you believe that, and I also believe that salvation is given through the Christ, though I am not at all convinced there is only one 'right' way to receive that. Believing that a man performed miracles does not automatically extrapolate into believing all the other doctrines put forth by those of the Christian faith.

I never said that it did. I don't know what you mean when you say there are various ways to receive salvation through Christ...I mean, there's only one way that I'm aware of, and that's to accept, believe, confess.

But I believe there is more than one way to accept, believe, confess. And I leave that up to God to decide how it will be done as I do not see that as our prerogative to do. We are given no power to 'save' anybody. Our job is to arrange the meeting, but we should always let God take it from there.

I've never claimed that I or anyone else has the power to save others. And I've never met a Christian who made that claim. But there isn't more than one way to salvation..you have to accept, believe and confess. At least according to the bible. But no, we aren't the judges.

 

[Marxist]

I just wish christians would do what jesus actually said and followed his teachings, not vehemently hate the poor like most christians on this website.

And I wish those who hate Christians would at least have the charity to not mischaracterize and accuse them as you just did. But then the Scriptures tell us to expect that, so oh well.

No, I will accuse christians who say that the poor don't deserve food and just need to use their boot straps, all while saying Jesus was perfectly ok with greed.

I don't know any Christians who hate the poor. I have witnessed and know of Christians who put a whole lot more of their time, energy, resources, and lives into efforts to help the poor than does ANY other group anywhere. And I have never heard any Christian say that Jesus was okay with greed, perfectly or otherwise.

Christians who say jesus didn't want the rich to give away their useless wealth...

Really? Please name those Christians. I know a LOT of Christians over the years, and I'm pretty sure I've never heard or read a Christian who said that.

Most conservatives these days

 

[Iceweasel]

Christians who say jesus didn't want the rich to give away their useless wealth...

Their wealth is useless if you can't get your grubby hands on it. There was no command to live in poverty. And none to create a government that takes from one and gives to another.

 

[Marxist]

Christians who say jesus didn't want the rich to give away their useless wealth...

Their wealth is useless if you can't get your grubby hands on it. There was no command to live in poverty. And none to create a government that takes from one and gives to another.

Jesus said that there's a better chance of a camel going through a needle into heaven then a rich man.. Along with a bunch of other things. Their wealth is useless? Good to know. No command to live in poverty? Of course, Jesus wanted everyone cared for. This is what Christianity has become, do you honestly think Jesus would oppose programs that help poor people?

 

[Derideo_Te]

A middle eastern Jew named Jesus existed, as did a man known as the prophet Muhammad. The problem is, their is no evidence for the miraculous acts.

That's a problem for you?

No. I'm simply stating facts.

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Ok, let alone that this is completely different, that the gospels were written decades after, and all of the other shit, tell me, are the acts of the quran true?

While I know some delightful and great people who happen to be Muslim, I have seen zero evidence that people's lives are made better or that people are made better by following the Qu'ran. I have seen massive evidence that people's lives are made better and that people are made better by allowing the Christ into their lives. So believing the Gospel is a whole lot easier for me than believing the Qu'ran.

The Gospels were edited together decades after the actual events, but almost certainly contained material that had been written down in notes or reported in the oral tradition long before. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes it clear that they were not written as one cohesive document but were rather compiled from a number of different sources.

Why does no one find it strange that even though Jesus was obviously educated enough to be able to read and write there is zero evidence of him having written anything at all? How about Matthew and Luke? They were also educated but there is no evidence of them actually having written anything at all?

On the other hand we apparently have plenty of letters from Paul (called the Man of the Lie by James, the brother of Jesus) who never actually met Jesus in person.

James the Brother of Jesus

Seems odd that for someone who was allegedly a well known and educated preacher of his time as Jesus is purported to have been that not a single remnant of anything he ever wrote can be found. We have all kinds of other documents from before, during and after that period that were preserved but nothing at all from Jesus himself.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I wish those who hate Christians would at least have the charity to not mischaracterize and accuse them as you just did. But then the Scriptures tell us to expect that, so oh well.

No, I will accuse christians who say that the poor don't deserve food and just need to use their boot straps, all while saying Jesus was perfectly ok with greed.

I don't know any Christians who hate the poor. I have witnessed and know of Christians who put a whole lot more of their time, energy, resources, and lives into efforts to help the poor than does ANY other group anywhere. And I have never heard any Christian say that Jesus was okay with greed, perfectly or otherwise.

Christians who say jesus didn't want the rich to give away their useless wealth...

Really? Please name those Christians. I know a LOT of Christians over the years, and I'm pretty sure I've never heard or read a Christian who said that.

Most conservatives these days

Conservatives and Christians are two separate things. Again name names or we will have no other choice but to assume you are just posting stuff with nothing to support it.

 

[koshergrl]

That's a problem for you?

No. I'm simply stating facts.

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Ok, let alone that this is completely different, that the gospels were written decades after, and all of the other shit, tell me, are the acts of the quran true?

While I know some delightful and great people who happen to be Muslim, I have seen zero evidence that people's lives are made better or that people are made better by following the Qu'ran. I have seen massive evidence that people's lives are made better and that people are made better by allowing the Christ into their lives. So believing the Gospel is a whole lot easier for me than believing the Qu'ran.

The Gospels were edited together decades after the actual events, but almost certainly contained material that had been written down in notes or reported in the oral tradition long before. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes it clear that they were not written as one cohesive document but were rather compiled from a number of different sources.

Why does no one find it strange that even though Jesus was obviously educated enough to be able to read and write there is zero evidence of him having written anything at all? How about Matthew and Luke? They were also educated but there is no evidence of them actually having written anything at all?

On the other hand we apparently have plenty of letters from Paul (called the Man of the Lie by James, the brother of Jesus) who never actually met Jesus in person.

James the Brother of Jesus

Seems odd that for someone who was allegedly a well known and educated preacher of his time as Jesus is purported to have been that not a single remnant of anything he ever wrote can be found. We have all kinds of other documents from before, during and after that period that were preserved but nothing at all from Jesus himself.

Actually, we don't have "all kinds of other documents" you moron. Writing was a very rare talent and not a common activity back then. People did not routinely "write things down"...and we have as much evidence of the existence of Christ as we do of the existence of any historical figure..including Julius Caesar, Plato, Cleopatra....

But it's a waste of time. There's no point in talking to imbecilic rabble like you. You love and embrace your ignorance. I just wish you had the good sense to quit advertising it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No. I'm simply stating facts.

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Ok, let alone that this is completely different, that the gospels were written decades after, and all of the other shit, tell me, are the acts of the quran true?

While I know some delightful and great people who happen to be Muslim, I have seen zero evidence that people's lives are made better or that people are made better by following the Qu'ran. I have seen massive evidence that people's lives are made better and that people are made better by allowing the Christ into their lives. So believing the Gospel is a whole lot easier for me than believing the Qu'ran.

The Gospels were edited together decades after the actual events, but almost certainly contained material that had been written down in notes or reported in the oral tradition long before. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes it clear that they were not written as one cohesive document but were rather compiled from a number of different sources.

Why does no one find it strange that even though Jesus was obviously educated enough to be able to read and write there is zero evidence of him having written anything at all? How about Matthew and Luke? They were also educated but there is no evidence of them actually having written anything at all?

On the other hand we apparently have plenty of letters from Paul (called the Man of the Lie by James, the brother of Jesus) who never actually met Jesus in person.

James the Brother of Jesus

Seems odd that for someone who was allegedly a well known and educated preacher of his time as Jesus is purported to have been that not a single remnant of anything he ever wrote can be found. We have all kinds of other documents from before, during and after that period that were preserved but nothing at all from Jesus himself.

Actually, we don't have "all kinds of other documents" you moron. Writing was a very rare talent and not a common activity back then. People did not routinely "write things down"...and we have as much evidence of the existence of Christ as we do of the existence of any historical figure..including Julius Caesar, Plato, Cleopatra....

But it's a waste of time. There's no point in talking to imbecilic rabble like you. You love and embrace your ignorance. I just wish you had the good sense to quit advertising it.

So now you are denying that Paul wrote all those epistles that you believe to be the "Word of God"?

 

[Vandalshandle]

That's a problem for you?

No. I'm simply stating facts.

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Ok, let alone that this is completely different, that the gospels were written decades after, and all of the other shit, tell me, are the acts of the quran true?

While I know some delightful and great people who happen to be Muslim, I have seen zero evidence that people's lives are made better or that people are made better by following the Qu'ran. I have seen massive evidence that people's lives are made better and that people are made better by allowing the Christ into their lives. So believing the Gospel is a whole lot easier for me than believing the Qu'ran.

The Gospels were edited together decades after the actual events, but almost certainly contained material that had been written down in notes or reported in the oral tradition long before. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes it clear that they were not written as one cohesive document but were rather compiled from a number of different sources.

Why does no one find it strange that even though Jesus was obviously educated enough to be able to read and write there is zero evidence of him having written anything at all? How about Matthew and Luke? They were also educated but there is no evidence of them actually having written anything at all?

On the other hand we apparently have plenty of letters from Paul (called the Man of the Lie by James, the brother of Jesus) who never actually met Jesus in person.

James the Brother of Jesus

Seems odd that for someone who was allegedly a well known and educated preacher of his time as Jesus is purported to have been that not a single remnant of anything he ever wrote can be found. We have all kinds of other documents from before, during and after that period that were preserved but nothing at all from Jesus himself.

Jesus would have written down his teachings, but could not afford to replace the Bic pen that Judas sold on Craig's List. If Jesus had only been a Mormon, then Moroni would have recorded everything on gold tablets.

 

[AudeSapere]

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Ok, let alone that this is completely different, that the gospels were written decades after, and all of the other shit, tell me, are the acts of the quran true?

While I know some delightful and great people who happen to be Muslim, I have seen zero evidence that people's lives are made better or that people are made better by following the Qu'ran. I have seen massive evidence that people's lives are made better and that people are made better by allowing the Christ into their lives. So believing the Gospel is a whole lot easier for me than believing the Qu'ran.

The Gospels were edited together decades after the actual events, but almost certainly contained material that had been written down in notes or reported in the oral tradition long before. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes it clear that they were not written as one cohesive document but were rather compiled from a number of different sources.

Why does no one find it strange that even though Jesus was obviously educated enough to be able to read and write there is zero evidence of him having written anything at all? How about Matthew and Luke? They were also educated but there is no evidence of them actually having written anything at all?

On the other hand we apparently have plenty of letters from Paul (called the Man of the Lie by James, the brother of Jesus) who never actually met Jesus in person.

James the Brother of Jesus

Seems odd that for someone who was allegedly a well known and educated preacher of his time as Jesus is purported to have been that not a single remnant of anything he ever wrote can be found. We have all kinds of other documents from before, during and after that period that were preserved but nothing at all from Jesus himself.

Actually, we don't have "all kinds of other documents" you moron. Writing was a very rare talent and not a common activity back then. People did not routinely "write things down"...and we have as much evidence of the existence of Christ as we do of the existence of any historical figure..including Julius Caesar, Plato, Cleopatra....

But it's a waste of time. There's no point in talking to imbecilic rabble like you. You love and embrace your ignorance. I just wish you had the good sense to quit advertising it.

So now you are denying that Paul wrote all those epistles that you believe to be the "Word of God"?

It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the epistles attributed to "Paul", never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to "Gnostic" sects for years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the epistles are evidently interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to various scholars, the bulk of the epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul".

 

[Foxfyre]

Christians who say jesus didn't want the rich to give away their useless wealth...

Their wealth is useless if you can't get your grubby hands on it. There was no command to live in poverty. And none to create a government that takes from one and gives to another.

Jesus said that there's a better chance of a camel going through a needle into heaven then a rich man.. Along with a bunch of other things. Their wealth is useless? Good to know. No command to live in poverty? Of course, Jesus wanted everyone cared for. This is what Christianity has become, do you honestly think Jesus would oppose programs that help poor people?

You need to read all of Jesus's words, especially his teaching parables, before you conclude that Jesus wanted everyone cared for. He was pretty clear that those capable of caring for themselves and their own interests should do so. You cannot lay your finger on one word attributed to Jesus that suggests that it is the responsibility of government to help the poor. He praised those who chose to help others as a genuine act of charity. He was much less kind to those who spoke fancy words and were pretentious in their piety but who left true charity to others to do.

 

[Iceweasel]

Christians who say jesus didn't want the rich to give away their useless wealth...

Their wealth is useless if you can't get your grubby hands on it. There was no command to live in poverty. And none to create a government that takes from one and gives to another.

Jesus said that there's a better chance of a camel going through a needle into heaven then a rich man.. Along with a bunch of other things. Their wealth is useless? Good to know. No command to live in poverty? Of course, Jesus wanted everyone cared for. This is what Christianity has become, do you honestly think Jesus would oppose programs that help poor people?

You aren't God so somebody else's salvation isn't something that should concern you. If programs turn people into lazy dependents then yes, Jesus would overturn their tables and whip them back to their socialist hellholes.

 

[AudeSapere]

The canonical gospels themselves, which in their present form, do not appear in the historical record until sometime between 170-180 AD/CE, and they were all found to be written in Greek, which is not the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of the area of the purported events in the bible. Their pretended authors, the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places.The birth date of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark", and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Christ is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is around three years. "Matthew" relates the Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount" before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly form each other, and no one states how old he was when he died. In addition, in the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the epistles attributed to "Paul", never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to "Gnostic" sects for years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the epistles are evidently interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to various scholars, the bulk of the epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul".

How is that telling? Paul never met Jesus except by a vision. How could he provide any history? Gnostics were all over the map theologically speaking. They borrowed from Christianity and Christianity may have borrowed from them.

 

[Iceweasel]

The canonical gospels themselves, which in their present form, do not appear in the historical record until sometime between 170-180 AD/CE, and they were all found to be written in Greek, which is not the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of the area of the purported events in the bible. Their pretended authors, the apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places.The birth date of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark", and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Christ is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is around three years. "Matthew" relates the Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount" before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly form each other, and no one states how old he was when he died. In addition, in the canonical gospels, Jesus himself makes many illogical contradictions concerning some of his most important teachings.

That was a little confusing. What evidence has the earliest gospels in their present form dated to 180? And earlier copies were not in Greek?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, let alone that this is completely different, that the gospels were written decades after, and all of the other shit, tell me, are the acts of the quran true?

While I know some delightful and great people who happen to be Muslim, I have seen zero evidence that people's lives are made better or that people are made better by following the Qu'ran. I have seen massive evidence that people's lives are made better and that people are made better by allowing the Christ into their lives. So believing the Gospel is a whole lot easier for me than believing the Qu'ran.

The Gospels were edited together decades after the actual events, but almost certainly contained material that had been written down in notes or reported in the oral tradition long before. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes it clear that they were not written as one cohesive document but were rather compiled from a number of different sources.

Why does no one find it strange that even though Jesus was obviously educated enough to be able to read and write there is zero evidence of him having written anything at all? How about Matthew and Luke? They were also educated but there is no evidence of them actually having written anything at all?

On the other hand we apparently have plenty of letters from Paul (called the Man of the Lie by James, the brother of Jesus) who never actually met Jesus in person.

James the Brother of Jesus

Seems odd that for someone who was allegedly a well known and educated preacher of his time as Jesus is purported to have been that not a single remnant of anything he ever wrote can be found. We have all kinds of other documents from before, during and after that period that were preserved but nothing at all from Jesus himself.

Actually, we don't have "all kinds of other documents" you moron. Writing was a very rare talent and not a common activity back then. People did not routinely "write things down"...and we have as much evidence of the existence of Christ as we do of the existence of any historical figure..including Julius Caesar, Plato, Cleopatra....

But it's a waste of time. There's no point in talking to imbecilic rabble like you. You love and embrace your ignorance. I just wish you had the good sense to quit advertising it.

So now you are denying that Paul wrote all those epistles that you believe to be the "Word of God"?

It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the epistles attributed to "Paul", never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to "Gnostic" sects for years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the epistles are evidently interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to various scholars, the bulk of the epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul".

Nice try but no cigar for you. The six of Paul's letters that we are certain can be attributed to Paul reference the historical Jesus and facts about him in numerous places. The Gnostics had become a problem teaching a false gospel--much as you have done here--and Paul does deal with them in some of his writings. But there is no question that Paul was very aware of and taught of the historical Jesus.

(The other five letters attributed to Paul may or may not have had his direct input, but many theologians believe they are more likely to have been penned by disciples of Paul. At that time in history, it was common for disciples of teachers to write under their teacher's name.)

 

[irosie91]

No. I'm simply stating facts.

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

Ok, let alone that this is completely different, that the gospels were written decades after, and all of the other shit, tell me, are the acts of the quran true?

While I know some delightful and great people who happen to be Muslim, I have seen zero evidence that people's lives are made better or that people are made better by following the Qu'ran. I have seen massive evidence that people's lives are made better and that people are made better by allowing the Christ into their lives. So believing the Gospel is a whole lot easier for me than believing the Qu'ran.

The Gospels were edited together decades after the actual events, but almost certainly contained material that had been written down in notes or reported in the oral tradition long before. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels makes it clear that they were not written as one cohesive document but were rather compiled from a number of different sources.

Why does no one find it strange that even though Jesus was obviously educated enough to be able to read and write there is zero evidence of him having written anything at all? How about Matthew and Luke? They were also educated but there is no evidence of them actually having written anything at all?

On the other hand we apparently have plenty of letters from Paul (called the Man of the Lie by James, the brother of Jesus) who never actually met Jesus in person.

James the Brother of Jesus

Seems odd that for someone who was allegedly a well known and educated preacher of his time as Jesus is purported to have been that not a single remnant of anything he ever wrote can be found. We have all kinds of other documents from before, during and after that period that were preserved but nothing at all from Jesus himself.

Actually, we don't have "all kinds of other documents" you moron. Writing was a very rare talent and not a common activity back then. People did not routinely "write things down"...and we have as much evidence of the existence of Christ as we do of the existence of any historical figure..including Julius Caesar, Plato, Cleopatra....

But it's a waste of time. There's no point in talking to imbecilic rabble like you. You love and embrace your ignorance. I just wish you had the good sense to quit advertising it.

actually -----wrong----at the time of jesus----literacy was very very prevalent amongst jewsh males-------and-----for those times ----extraordinarily high amongst
females------well-----sorta -----like maybe 10%. Why do you call yourself "kosher girl" it creates the erroneous impression that you are a jew

 

[NYcarbineer]

A middle eastern Jew named Jesus existed, as did a man known as the prophet Muhammad. The problem is, their is no evidence for the miraculous acts.

That's a problem for you?

No. I'm simply stating facts.

There is no evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo. All we believe to be fact because of the historical record that exists, and we take it on faith that the historical record that exists is the way it was.

Those miracles in the Bible are no different.

So the stories about Big Foot are no more or less historically accurate than the stories of Jesus causing miracles?

 

[Derideo_Te]

(The other five letters attributed to Paul may or may not have had his direct input, but many theologians believe they are more likely to have been penned by disciples of Paul. At that time in history, it was common for disciples of teachers to write under their teacher's name.)

And yet none of the 12 disciples wrote anything that Jesus said!

Why would there be no such record when the letters of Paul survived?