Archaeology of the New Testament

Cypress said:
and his followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.
Click to expand...
They may have or may not have. You are basing that assumption on writing by people who never met Jesus and were living in a completely different country when it was written.

And, there's many inconsistencies between the writings that are CLAIMED to be from people very close to Jesus.

You want to believe something and consistently ignore anything that opposes what you want to believe.
 
ZenMode said:
They may have or may not have. You are basing that assumption on writing by people who never met Jesus and were living in a completely different country when it was written.

And, there's many inconsistencies between the writings that are CLAIMED to be from people very close to Jesus.

You want to believe something and consistently ignore anything that opposes what you want to believe.
Click to expand...
You claim to be an export on Jesus Christ, which you say you don't believe in. Paradox.
 
ZenMode said:
They may have or may not have. You are basing that assumption on writing by people who never met Jesus and were living in a completely different country when it was written.

And, there's many inconsistencies between the writings that are CLAIMED to be from people very close to Jesus.

You want to believe something and consistently ignore anything that opposes what you want to believe.
Click to expand...
You claimed all the earliest Christian writings were from 40 to 90 years after the crucifixion. That's where you were mistaken. That would be two to three generations after the original apostles.

The earliest Christian writing we have corroborating the life, death, and resurrection is from only a few years after the crucifixion and was written by someone who had interviewed Peter, James, and John. That's the older creeds Paul quotes in Corinthians.

Most of the rest of the canon were compiled during the generation of the apostles.

Your claim that the canon was written two or three generations later by random obscure liars who were at least ten steps removed from Jesus' ministry isn't supported by a shred of evidence and doesn't even make sense in the contest of the manuscript evidence we have.

I expect witness accounts to agree, I expect them to diverge sometimes.

That's how witness testimony works

I would actually be highly suspicious if all the canonical gospel accounts lined up perfectly.


I agree with Bart Ehrman to at least 80 percent of the time. Me and Bart agree on the historicity of these events:

A Jewish rabbi from Galilee named Jesus lived in the first century.

He had a ministry and a group of followers.

He was arrested by the Sanhedrin and executed by the Romans for political crimes.

His followers genuinely believed they saw him again after the crucifixion.
 
Cypress said:
You claimed all the earliest Christian writings were from 40 to 90 years after the crucifixion. That's where you were mistaken. That would be two to three generations after the original apostles.
Click to expand...
Ok. That doesn't change anything.
Cypress said:
The earliest Christian writing we have corroborating the life, death, and resurrection is from only a few years after the crucifixion and was written by someone who had interviewed Peter, James, and John. That's the older creeds Paul quotes in Corinthians.
Click to expand...
Which writings are you referring to?
Cypress said:
Most of the rest of the canon were compiled during the generation of the apostles.
Click to expand...
Ok.
Cypress said:
Your claim that the canon was written two or three generations later by random obscure liars who were at least ten steps removed from Jesus' ministry isn't supported by a shred of evidence and doesn't even make sense in the contest of the manuscript evidence we have.
Click to expand...
It is supported by a variety of things, including the use of specific words and their use/meaning over time.
Cypress said:
I expect witness accounts to agree, I expect them to diverge sometimes.
Click to expand...
What 'witness accounts' are you referring to specifically?
Cypress said:
That's how witness testimony works
Click to expand...
Cypress said:
I would actually be highly suspicious if all the canonical gospel accounts lined up perfectly.
Click to expand...
But you aren't suspicious when they vary so dramatically that they are incompatible?
Cypress said:
His followers genuinely believed they saw him again after the crucifixion.
Click to expand...
What people "believe" they saw isn't relevant. Paul "believed" he saw Jesus after his death despite never meeting Jesus. Does that make sense?
 

Paul's famous revelation may have been 'caused by epileptic fit', say scientists​

Brite lights and loud sounds

Rather than hearing God talking to him, scientists in Israel have suggested Saint Paul’s revelation could have been brought about by an epileptic seizure,

www.independent.co.uk

Saint Paul may have been having a fit not hearing God

Researchers at Hadassah Medical Centre have scanned the brain of a man during a seizure while he also had visions of God
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Guno צְבִי said:

Paul's famous revelation may have been 'caused by epileptic fit', say scientists​

Brite lights and loud sounds

Rather than hearing God talking to him, scientists in Israel have suggested Saint Paul’s revelation could have been brought about by an epileptic seizure,

www.independent.co.uk

Saint Paul may have been having a fit not hearing God

Researchers at Hadassah Medical Centre have scanned the brain of a man during a seizure while he also had visions of God
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
and god referring to Jews as special meant they were retarded.


:tardthoughts:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top