[TrashMan]

Sheesh...TIME PERIOD...not second.
Most of the people/vitnesses were still alive after 20-30 years

Were they still alive 50 years later? Cause that's the average figure for the gospel of John.

I write something and refine it till I die. The book slowly circulates but it's not untill after 20 years that it's noticed. Does it matter that by that time I'm long gone? Does it make my testimony written there any less ture?

Prove it. Where are the records?

Dunno. Read it in a magazine some time ago..romans did keep neet books, alltough a lot of it is destroyed. Dunno how accurate that is, but still. What about the Ku'ran? It also sez Jesus was a real person.

I can tell you the day Julius Caesar was killed. I can tell you the day Pompeii was destroyed. I can tell you when the day the battle of Zama was fought. Are you seriously telling me that with all your hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection and expert Roman bookkeeping you can't even give me the ****ing year?

And there are a hunderd events and people whose exact years and dates you CAN'T give me. Your point?

[karajorma]

I know the day Caesar died, too.  Let's see the sources you cite for those three examples you listed.  Give me the day, then tell me were you got your information and why you think it is reliable.

For Pompeii we have the writings of Pliny the Younger. Who went on to become a famous author of the day. It's pretty easy to explain why it's reliable. It's the day Pliny the Elder died. (well he died that week during the eruption, I can't be bothered to check on which exact day).

For Caesar you could write a book of the accounts of his death. Here's a list from Wikipedia.

For Zama you have the excellent Roman book keeping that Trashman has already acknowledged.


Now let's see your source for the date of 36 AD cause as I said before that's 3 years later than any souce I've heard (Even before we ignore the fact that biblical dating is off by about 4-6 years given that Herod ****ing died in 4 BC!)

So you don't doubt the existence of Jesus.  What is it you do doubt, then?  The miracles He performed? The prophecies He fulfilled?  What do you take Christ as, and what about Him (at least, Him perceived by us Christians) do you have a problem with?

I think, as I said before that he's a priest who got very very lucky and still has people following his religion 2000 years later. Siddhārtha Gautama is the only other one who has been that lucky that comes to mind.

I write something and refine it till I die. The book slowly circulates but it's not untill after 20 years that it's noticed. Does it matter that by that time I'm long gone? Does it make my testimony written there any less ture?

It certainly makes it a lot harder to verify! Which is what got us onto the age of the gospels in the first place if you remember.

Dunno. Read it in a magazine some time ago..romans did keep neet books, alltough a lot of it is destroyed. Dunno how accurate that is, but still.

Would you convict a person of murder based on that? Cause that was the level of proof that was claimed. Beyond reasonable doubt. Would you consider "I read something...I think...But it might have been destroyed...and I don't know how accurate it is" as beyond reasonable doubt?

What about the Ku'ran? It also sez Jesus was a real person.

I'm supposed to take the word of someone who lived 600 years later and a thousand miles away as proof?

I can tell you the day Julius Caesar was killed. I can tell you the day Pompeii was destroyed. I can tell you when the day the battle of Zama was fought. Are you seriously telling me that with all your hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection and expert Roman bookkeeping you can't even give me the ****ing year?

And there are a hunderd events and people whose exact years and dates you CAN'T give me. Your point?

You're claiming to have contemporary Roman writings about the crucifixion and you can't even give me the year?  And you don't see this as a flaw in your argument that there are contemporary writings about Jesus other than the bible? Even though Roman writings are often accurate to the day?

If you can't give me the year how do you even know that they're about Jesus at all and not some other guy with a similar name?

[jr2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[Asuko]

Hey, um, don't bring any other religious texts into this.

At this point, it doesn't really matter whether Jesus existed. Christianity came into being and that's it.

[karajorma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Even other Christians question the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. The second passage is more widely held by Christians to be true.

And he still isn't contemporary anyway. The man was born after the crucifixion. 

[TrashMan]

I don't recal lever claiming anything beyond the shadow of doubt. You're confusing me with G0atmaster.
History allways has been a murky thing and I dont' even belive far better documanted events beyond the shadow of a doubt. Writtne things can allways be forged. Witnesses can allways lie. Book cna allways be re-written.
But one has to belive something, either way.

But let me ask you things then - you don't belive the Bible, the KuRan or any other later source as being accurate...so what or whom would you belive?

[Mefustae]

But let me ask you things then - you don't belive the Bible, the KuRan or any other later source as being accurate...so what or whom would you belive?

How about an accurate historical document that hasn't been rewritten, revised, and subjected to the twisted wills of a thousand different men over the past few thousand years?

[karajorma]

I don't recal lever claiming anything beyond the shadow of doubt. You're confusing me with G0atmaster.

Actually I'm not. GOatmaster claimed that level of proof so I first wanted to prove him wrong when you jumped in and decided to argue too. At least we can both agree that he is wrong and that there isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt.

But let me ask you things then - you don't belive the Bible, the KuRan or any other later source as being accurate...so what or whom would you belive?

I'll take the evidence of multiple contemporary sources all saying the same thing. If I don't have that I'm not going to take anything historical as fact. So given that the bible is the only contemporary source (and even that is sketchy since only one of the gospels is definitely written by one of the apostles) it wouldn't meet the standard that I'd considered needed for a historical record that can stand on it's own. And that's even before I consider the facts that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof  and that there is obviously an issue of bias.

[TrashMan]

I don't recal lever claiming anything beyond the shadow of doubt. You're confusing me with G0atmaster.

Actually I'm not. GOatmaster claimed that level of proof so I first wanted to prove him wrong when you jumped in and decided to argue too. At least we can both agree that he is wrong and that there isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I didn't arge that level of proof, I just argued that there is some proof.
I'd be a fool to claim that it's proof beyond question.
I myself belive it, but that hardly qualifies it.

As I said, history is iffy..I don't put much faith in historical documents (the details) in general.

[karajorma]

You're entitled to believe whatever you wish. It's when people claim that there is evidence other than the bible that my hackles are raised.

[Asuko]

Dammit, I give up. This topic has been moot for the last x pages. Goodbye.

[Scuddie]

Who are you?

Also, the Quran is more accurate (the first five books, anyway) than the bible.  The word of the Bible has been translated, retranslated, butchered, added to, cut from, and manipulated to serve the will of the Church.  It is considered blasphemous, by contrast, to modify the Quran in any way.  Furthermore, I don't think anybody with half a brain would argue against the fact that Jesus did indeed exist.  He existed, there is no question about that.  I also don't think anybody with half a brain's worth of knowledge about the Bible would argue for many elements in its pages.  For example, "May he who is without sin cast the first stone" has been disproven.  It was not in the original script, nor in many of the translations following.  It was merely a speculation against what Jesus may have done or said under certain circumstances.  It was fairly popular to write ideas of that nature in that era, and many side-scripts were incorrectly merged with the scripture.

So with that logic, it probably isn't the best idea to hold the Bible as the most accurate of testaments to God.

[G0atmaster]

Who are you?

Also, the Quran is more accurate (the first five books, anyway) than the bible.  The word of the Bible has been translated, retranslated, butchered, added to, cut from, and manipulated to serve the will of the Church.  It is considered blasphemous, by contrast, to modify the Quran in any way.  Furthermore, I don't think anybody with half a brain would argue against the fact that Jesus did indeed exist.  He existed, there is no question about that.  I also don't think anybody with half a brain's worth of knowledge about the Bible would argue for many elements in its pages.  For example, "May he who is without sin cast the first stone" has been disproven.  It was not in the original script, nor in many of the translations following.  It was merely a speculation against what Jesus may have done or said under certain circumstances.  It was fairly popular to write ideas of that nature in that era, and many side-scripts were incorrectly merged with the scripture.

So with that logic, it probably isn't the best idea to hold the Bible as the most accurate of testaments to God.

First of all, I know the particular story in John ch. 8 is only in one copy of the early manuscripts, and is not backed up in the earliest, most reliable ones.  That doesn't necessarily mean it was changed.  As far as the Bible's accuracy goes...  Every Jew is taught the ins and outs of the Hebrew language from age 8 on IIRC.  There are so many people who would be able to tell a fake translation at first glance, it is HIGHLY improbable that anyone could pull such a deception off.  Furthermore, the Bible itself is a collection of other pieces of scripture, holy books and other collected writings that claim to be "inspired."  I don't really know much about the process that went into the canonization of the current Bible, but from what I understand, ALL of what's in there now (besides that piece from John, which most bibles make a note about, btw) have been backed up and corroberated by other works, such as the Dead Sea scrolls.

[TrashMan]

You're entitled to believe whatever you wish. It's when people claim that there is evidence other than the bible that my hackles are raised.

There is evidence other than a Bible, only it's not perticulary solid...
That's another matter alltogether.

[karajorma]

As far as the Bible's accuracy goes...  Every Jew is taught the ins and outs of the Hebrew language from age 8 on IIRC.  There are so many people who would be able to tell a fake translation at first glance, it is HIGHLY improbable that anyone could pull such a deception off.

Fake translation of what exactly? The Dead Sea scrolls date from 200 BC at the earliest and nothing exists that is older so there is plenty of time for the old testament to have been ****ed around with well before they were written. As for the New Testament there's nothing that covers that either. The oldest surviving copy of the NT is from the 4th century and has already been translated into Greek.

Furthermore, the Bible itself is a collection of other pieces of scripture, holy books and other collected writings that claim to be "inspired."  I don't really know much about the process that went into the canonization of the current Bible, but from what I understand, ALL of what's in there now (besides that piece from John, which most bibles make a note about, btw) have been backed up and corroberated by other works, such as the Dead Sea scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also contains other books which are strangely missing from the bible.

And as I say before just because the dead sea scrolls from 200 BC match what we have now doesn't mean it matches what was written 2000 BC.

[G0atmaster]

What  I meant was, we have a collection of books, I.E. the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac texts, etc. that have been around for who knows how long.  The Dead Sea scrolls corroborate just about everything in those.

[karajorma]

Except the New Testament of course.

And as I said I suspect that any major fiddling of the OT would have been done long before the time of Jesus.

[Mobius]

I can tell you the day Julius Caesar was killed. I can tell you the day Pompeii was destroyed. I can tell you when the day the battle of Zama was fought. Are you seriously telling me that with all your hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection and expert Roman bookkeeping you can't even give me the ****ing year?

Actually, the date of the destruction of Pompeii is being discussed. Recent findings demonstrate the Pompeii was destroyed in October-November, not during Summer(was it in August)? People who copied Roman texts(many hundred years after the collapse of the Empire) changed some parts of the texts themselves.

[karajorma]

Now that's quite interesting. Cause the date Vesuvius actually erupted is undisputed as far as I know.

Which does make you wonder why anyone would sit under an erupting volcano for a month and a half.

[NGTM-1R]

Okay, God created us. But he created us wrong. We're prideful, we're violent, aggressive, brash. We wage war with our brothers as easily as we breathe, and we capable of evils far too dark to even imagine. Yep, God cocked up. Does God clean up his mistake? Nope. All the power of the universe, and he couldn't be stuffed. Does he take responsibility for the things he's created? Nope. All the power in the universe and he can't make a loaf of bread for a starving child in Ethiopia.

One of the great philosophical questions of existence. The obvious answer to be thrown at you, of course, is that God gave us free will and the right to choose. We were given infinite power without infinite perspective, this is what happened. It is a measure of his respect for our right to self-determine that he refuses to intervene.

On the other hand, there is also another classic question. I once heard it phrased as "Nevermind why God would create a universe filled with such evil. Why would God create a universe at all? He is complete unto himself, isn't he?"