ZenMode
Well-known member
Translation: "I've got nothing."
Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
ZenMode
Well-known member
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.
Into the Night
Contributor
You just called it an opinion again. That is a fact.
Go learn what 'fact' means.
Into the Night
Contributor
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.
Into the Night
Contributor
You claim to be an export on Jesus Christ, which you say you don't believe in. Paradox.
ZenMode
Well-known member
ZenMode
Well-known member
Not true. I believe in Jesus as much as I believe in Michael Jackson or Rush Limbaugh.
That doesn't do anything to disprove what I wrote.
Catholics wanted to kill Protestants in the 16th century, even though when you get down to basics they had similar beliefs in many respects.
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.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Ok. That doesn't change anything.
Which writings are you referring to?
Ok.
It is supported by a variety of things, including the use of specific words and their use/meaning over time.
What 'witness accounts' are you referring to specifically?
But you aren't suspicious when they vary so dramatically that they are incompatible?
What people "believe" they saw isn't relevant. Paul "believed" he saw Jesus after his death despite never meeting Jesus. Does that make sense?
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Paul's famous revelation may have been 'caused by epileptic fit', say scientists
Brite lights and loud soundsRather than hearing God talking to him, scientists in Israel have suggested Saint Paul’s revelation could have been brought about by an epileptic seizure,
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