OK i know where this will lead because you will come up with some dumbassed pratt but here goes. what statistical scientific proof that the bible could not be man made is there?
crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Going on and on is ok, as long as it is honest questioning. I know society encourages us in many ways to be like that, but it doesn't help us or anyone else. There's a difference between dialogue and debate, the latter includes winning at all costs even if that means being dishonest to some degree. I've been there and done that and realized it doesn't make sense.
So you want links from me to prove there is corroborating evidence to what is stated in scripture? Off top of my head can start with the Dead Sea Scrolls which confirmed many questions up to that discovery, there's boatloads of archaeological evidence, there's all sorts of interesting genetic stuff which is a bit over my head, there's many historians who left records that were AGAINST Jesus and his teachings that all confirmed he existed and said what he said. I'm not sure exactly where to start.
I mean yes, not every single part can be corroborated but also remember that not every single part of the theory of evolution is wired shut tight without question. There are unanswered questions in almost any field and such is the mystery of life, why we are here, for what ultimate purpose, etc. The point I am making is that there is enough corroborating evidence to lift scriptural records up on par with most other historical documents that are not questioned.
So from that angle, do you have something specific in mind?
lol. you thumpers are so funny. you are just sure everything you believe is true but you cant ever back it up with evidence.
so when these experts compared the bible texts with other literature which texts did they use. hopefully you are aware that we dont have original texts and we dont know who the authors were. all we have are copies of copies. the oldest text we have of the nt is about 120-150 years after the fact and it is just a fragment the size of a credit card. educate yourself before you come here with that kind of pratt. this isnt sunday school where you will not be challenged.
"Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there is a fourth option: legend." (Bart Ehrman American New Testament scholar)
i challenge you. produce one piece of first person evidence outside the bible that jesus even existed let alone was devine.
this might help you educate yourself:
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1643965&pageno=3
If the question is whether Jesus was a historical figure the answer is yes.
There are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus and almost all scholars concur the second mention is authentic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Josephus
Main article: Josephus on Jesus
Flavius Josephus (c. 37âc. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in AD 93. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice, though scholars debate their authenticity. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[71]
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937â1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[72] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.[73] There has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree. However, Geza Vermes points out in an in-depth analysis of the passage that much of the language is typically Josephan, which not only supports the hypothesis that Josephus did write something about Jesus, but also may aid in determining which parts of the passage are genuine.[74] While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[75] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[76] since some portions are written in his style.[77]
In the second, brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[78] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[79] Hegesippus, in a work produced around 165-175, also has an account of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with Josephus regarding the death of James the Just (c70 CE vs Josephus' c64).[80][81][82]
In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ,[83] as it seems to suggest in the quote above. L. Michael White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the 3rd century, who quoted from Josephus's Antiquities, do not mention this passage.[84] However, Alice Whealey has shown that it is far from clear that any 3rd century Christians other than Origen quoted from or even directly knew Antiquities.[85]
The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James. Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome (died in 420 AD) and Michael the Syrian (died in 1199 AD) quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian indicates the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium in the 5th century, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.[citation needed]
Shlomo Pines and a few other scholars have argued that the version of the Tes
There are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus and almost all scholars concur the second mention is authentic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Josephus
Main article: Josephus on Jesus
Flavius Josephus (c. 37âc. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in AD 93. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice, though scholars debate their authenticity. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[71]
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937â1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[72] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.[73] There has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree. However, Geza Vermes points out in an in-depth analysis of the passage that much of the language is typically Josephan, which not only supports the hypothesis that Josephus did write something about Jesus, but also may aid in determining which parts of the passage are genuine.[74] While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[75] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[76] since some portions are written in his style.[77]
In the second, brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[78] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[79] Hegesippus, in a work produced around 165-175, also has an account of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with Josephus regarding the death of James the Just (c70 CE vs Josephus' c64).[80][81][82]
In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ,[83] as it seems to suggest in the quote above. L. Michael White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the 3rd century, who quoted from Josephus's Antiquities, do not mention this passage.[84] However, Alice Whealey has shown that it is far from clear that any 3rd century Christians other than Origen quoted from or even directly knew Antiquities.[85]
The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James. Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome (died in 420 AD) and Michael the Syrian (died in 1199 AD) quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian indicates the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium in the 5th century, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.[citation needed]
Shlomo Pines and a few other scholars have argued that the version of the Tes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
This article is about the basis for holding the view that Jesus existed as portrayed in the Bible.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum.
Conscenus is the first Josepheus mention is confirmable as a forgery, made by Christians altering the Josepheus text. That is not a good basis to imagine the second mention would be valid, and for further good reason , there is no scholarly consensus on the second mention.
The Josepheus Testimonium Flavianum does not meet the requirements needed for acceptance as historical evidence.
It is anyway - laughable to believe that the only so called evidence for the supposed Christ character is first a forgery, second academically refuted, and third the ONLY source in history coming from two tiny mentions one forged, from one Jewish chronicler, when there should be many confirmations via different sources, as is the case for establishing historical people.
Talk about clutching at straws. That wiki page gives more clues as to why Josepheus is not reliable.
As far as historical goes, King Arthur and Robin Hood have more going for them than Bible Jesus, and they have nothing at all.
Oh look it is the puppet troll.
You are a true atheist zealout fraud stu. We have gone through this.
The second passage in Josephus is accepted by just about all scholars. If anything wikipedia underplays the almost universal acceptance of the second passage.
You Stu even tried to find accepted scholars who disputed the authenticity of the second passage and you had to rely on mispresentations to find even one.
The cold hard facts is that Jesus was mentioned in one of the the few historical documents we have of that time, in at least one undisputed passage. That makes Jesus a historical figure.
As your point... about historical documents... almost all the documents we have of the time would fit on a small bookshelf.
So, we have an undisputed account in Josephus, we have the bible,
we have the documents found at the dead sea.
Your argument is infantile and dismissed by all scholars... it is tantamount to demanding 2000 year old video tape.
Here we go with the infantile name calling. Can't support what you say so you get pathetic, as usual.
The Josephus second passage is not "accepted by just about all scholars". It is refuted, and there is no consensus, and the cold hard fact is it could not come up to muster on its own as historical evidence anyway. All historical evidence needs corroboration.
You're too gullible jem. You want to believe Jesus was an historical person so you blindly accept any old stuff that people call 'evidence', just so long as it is in line with what you want.
Historicity demands a more rational approach than yours.