Again, not a proactive argument, only reactive argument. Which is your right.
DrTyore;375480 wroteI don't know why I keep getting sucked in...
I think I am the one getting sucked in here, as the reality is there isn't a clear case/argument to made for the reality of everything we see and know to be true for the existence of everything. Only a case that pokes holes at the Bible.
Okay, show me the non biblical historical documentation of water into wine, fish and loaves expanding to feed the many, blind and lepers spontaneously being cured.
Did JC live? Sure.. but that's hardly a big deal really.
Really? Think about that for a minute. It's not the miracles that were performed that is the problem. It is the message that is the problem. There were miracle workers in the day. Moses threw his rod down and it became a serpent and so did Pharaohs sorcerers do the same thing. There will always be a counterfeiter of miracles. Answer this? Why was Jesus crucified? The answer is because He forgave sins. And the religious leaders of the day said it was blasphemy for only God can forgive sin.
Right now, Pope John Paul II is either through, or being put through the stages of sainthood.... I was alive a good portion of his run, and I don't recall any "miracles" (you know, the main criteria)?
Revisionism, changing the rules for what ends as little better than a publicity stunt, and just plain stubbornness of the followers to see the screaming light of day... it's like arguing with leaf fans.
Mark
Why should Christianity give up the New Testament and Bible as a whole as source material in understanding the history of the time period. You may not like the theological ideas that come from them but there is no need to throw the history that they provide. However, help put the NT into context try: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, and Josephus to name a few.
800OVER;375536 wroteMany scholars believe the Gospels were not written by people who met Jesus....that they were written by others many years after the fact. Considering they're full of differences...those scholars are probably correct.
And if you're interested in looking it up: "the God who wasn't there"
What scholars are you referring too? Karen King, Bart Ehrman, or Dan Brown author of the Da Vinci Code? For every author you have that says the apostle Paul didn't write the 13 books of the NT attrribute to him, I could probably give you three that say other wise if we just stick to people with PhD's. And that goes for the rest of the NT as well.
Which books were written by people who never met Jesus? I will give you Hebrews as the author has not been identified.
The truth is one wants to throw out material written within decades of the accession, as having no historical value, yet will take as historical fact from historians whom we have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years later sometimes. Let's throw out everything from 650 bc - 1500 ad. No Alexander the Great, no Julius Caesar, no Nero, no Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, no Roman Empire, Egyptian and all that history.
The fact is you accept by faith, what historians have recorded about the people above and a host of others and like I said, we don't have their original copies. We only have copies of copies of copies some 400 - 1500 years after the events. In some cases only 2 or 3 copies of the works written.
The documentary God wasn't there?
I will watch it, but can tell you right now it is foolishness. Even one of the most celebrated agnostic/atheists of our day Dr Bart Erhman has written a book called:
Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth.
So much more that could be said!