Scientists slowly proving the bible is right.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
I would like to know why the bible makes no mention of the Sumerian culture. One might even argue they surpress the evidence of such a culture, which did in fact exist many thousands of years B.C., and invented damn near everything we use today.
It would seem we as a species evolved quite rapdily during their reign. Perhaps it was as some claim, alien intervention. Doesn't strike me as any more far fethced than biblical stories.
It would seem we as a species evolved quite rapdily during their reign. Perhaps it was as some claim, alien intervention. Doesn't strike me as any more far fethced than biblical stories.
You pointed out false claims as evidence for a historical Jesus. That's what you did.
I pointed out they were false.
Nothing that you mentioned stands as historical evidence. Non of it can be verified or substantiated as having existed or taken place in the real world as distinct from being legendary. It just does not fulfill even the most basic requirements for being considered as historical evidence in support of Jesus.
The TRUE FACT is Wallet, your statement is NOT TRUE FACT
I think I would be too, if I were trying to pump false claims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you can take the actual writings themselves ( which exist) eyewitness accounts and historical documentation, look up your own translation or take the translations of those actual texts/writings from scholars with degrees and their findings, but I guess non-of that matters........ as the mighty Stu has deemed it all hog-wash.
I don't need to defend the authenticity of scripture or historical facts, they speak for themselves. Regardless of your feeble attempts to persuade others of your atheistic beliefs, everyday more and more people turn to Christ.
you thumpers are funny. you believe without question yet you dont even know the history of the bible.
no, the actual writings do not exist. all we have are copies of copies the earliest dating to about 150 ad and that piece is only about the size of a credit card.
Notice that fact that Stu - cites to no one. And gives nothing but his own opinion. You should see the b.s. he spews when I remind him that Jospehus refers to Christ two different times and the second passage is virtually undisputed as a reference to the historical Jesus.
In other words, almost every historian and every scholar alive agrees this passage is real.
"Reference to Jesus as brother of James
The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[66]
The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[9]
from wikipedia.
- The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all christian apologetic scholars, whose previous members of their ilk have already been caught red handed clumsily and condescendingly altering Josephus's text by inserting the word Christ where Josephus never would use it [9]
That's what happens when one suspends all critical analysis, an essential ingredient in establishing historicity.
It all ends up like jem. Clueless.
The thing is, I think people like yourself , if you want to make claims that are untrue, will have to start to defend what is now being seen more widely in this age of information, as a crock.
The problem with your argument is so obvious to anyone who considers it for one second, I wonder why you'd want to make it in the first place.
Yes there are actual writings of characters like Jesus. There are also actual writings of characters like Osiris and Zeus, but non including those about Jesus, are eyewitness accounts, nor have any verifiable evidence that confirms any of them once existed in the real world as distinct from being legendary.
And there are plenty of scholars with degrees who will also tell you there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed.
This is nothing to do with so called atheistic belief. It's about you making wholly false and deceitful claims and calling it religious belief.