1818 replies to this topic

[cats_lover]

KNOW WHAT THIS SONG IS ABOUT?

 

 

It is about Sara?
 

[shadowhawk]

Who is Sarah?

[cats_lover]

Who is Sarah?

 

You share a music video and ask about it...
 

[shadowhawk]

Lyrics for Sarah

Go now,
Don't look back we've drawn the line,
move on,
Its no good to go back in time,
I'll never find another girl like you,
for happy endings it takes two,
with fire and ice, a dream won't come true.

(Chorus)
Sarah, Sarah
storms are brewing in your eyes,
Sarah, Sarah
no time is a good time for goodbyes

Danger,
in the game when the stakes are high,
branded,
my heart was branded while my senses stood by,
I'll never find another girl like you,
for happy endings it takes two,
with fire and ice, a dream won't come true.

(Chorus)
Sarah, Sarah
storms are brewing in your eyes
Sarah, Sarah
no time is a good time for goodbyes

Hey, Sarah,
Love me like no one has ever loved me before,
hey, Sarah,
hurt me no one could ever hurt me more.

Hey, Sarah,
Sarah,
Hey, Sarah
the way you loved me before

Instrumental

I'll never find a girl like you,
with fire and ice, a dream won't come true

Chorus
Sarah, Sarah
no time is a good time for
Sarah, Sarah
storms are brewing in your eyes
Sarah, Sarah
no time is good time for goodbyes
Sarah, Sarah
storms are brewing in your eyes
Sarah, Sarah
no time is a good time
no-oh-oh-oh-oh
oh-Sarah
why did it, why did it,
why did it all fall apart?
 

[cats_lover]

Well, as English is not my first language I cannot fully understand some possible hidden meaning in the song, as far as I can understand is the typical song of a boy who is sad because he broke with his girlfriend. I can not relate to the song with the main topic of the thread.

Nice song by the way...

[shadowhawk]

Sarah

http://www.lifenews....ey-she-aborted/

 

 

 

 

[cats_lover]

Sarah

http://www.lifenews....ey-she-aborted/

 

Oh, ok, deeper than it looked. What is the relation with this thread?
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Sarah

http://www.lifenews....ey-she-aborted/

 

Oh, ok, deeper than it looked. What is the relation with this thread?
 

 

Good question.    It is weak.  I usually stick fairly close to the topic but, abortion.  Ok you are right and I have not answered your on topic question.  So I will come back to it.  Sorry. 

[shadowhawk]

So there was all kinds of communication going on in the earliest church.  The heart if the information was at first eye witness and there were thousands of them.  There were the 12 apostles still alive and they soon went all over the then known world from Jerusalem telling people what had happened.  Soon others believed their witness and various centers of Christians started all over the world and as I have said in my last post, they started exchanging letters which eventually became the Bible.  The Church produced the Bible not the other way around.  Worship in the form of creeds and songs are found throughout the New Testament, which were the heart if this early belief by the Church.  How early were these creeds, songs and letters?

They were written during the lives of the Apostles and John the Apostle was the last of the apostles to die.  He was the only one to die and that was around AD100 give or take a few years.  He was the only one to die of natural causes as a very old man.  So how much earlier was the New testament written?  Christ was crucified during Passover 33AD.  So in that 67 years the New testament was written.  However when did John write his last book, Revelation?   

A huge historical event took place in Israel in 70 AD.  The liberal scholar J.A.T. ROBINSON wrote a famous book, Radating The New Testament.  http://www.amazon.co...e new testament
 He notes that this event is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.  It is the fall and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and they even destroyed the Second Temple which has never been rebuilt to this day.  http://www.eyewitnes...ewishtemple.htm   The Jews rebelled against Rome starting in 66AD, That is only 33 years after Christ’s crucifixion.  It would be like the United States being destroyed and Washington burned and destroyed and no mention of it.  It would be like the Vatican being destroyed and no Catholic making mention of it.  So, I place the writing of the New Testament within those 33 years.  How early?  Next post.








 

[shadowhawk]

When was the New Testament Written?  Cont.
So within 33 years of the death of Christ the New Testament was written.  A major reason I say that is because Israel was destroyed by the Romans after the Jews rebelled in 66AD.  The Bible does not mention either the rebellion nor the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple.

The Romans after the destruction renamed many of the roads and locations of Israel so much so that early skeptics faulted the scriptures because they had the original names long forgotten.  The names mentioned in the Bible point to a very early date, before the destruction.

The Earliest Church copied these early letters and exchanged them with each other.  Early Fathers of the Church, some of them mentioned in the Bible itself quoted these whitings in their own writings, so much so that we can reconstruct the entire New Testament itself just from the quotes.  I will address what is the earliest new testament writings.

http://www.westarkch...trabiblical.htm




 

[shadowhawk]

[Blink]

[shadowhawk]

THIRD POST ON DATING THE NEW TESTAMENT

We have been discussing the new Testament and its transmission during the period of time prior to the creation of these documents. The Biblical eyewitnesses (The Church) didn’t immediately write down their observations about Jesus. Following the resurrection, many years passed before the first Gospel was penned. In this “tunnel period” between the resurrection of Jesus and the authorship of the first Gospels, the eyewitnesses communicated their observations orally. This was only natural.  What precisely were the disciples saying about Jesus prior to writing the Gospels? Were their oral statements consistent with the Gospel accounts? How can we determine what they said about Jesus? As it turns out, we have an evidential record of the earliest statements about Jesus. They’re embedded in the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Paul was converted to Christianity on the road to Damascus, where Jesus appeared to him and radically changed the course of Paul’s life. Formerly a devout Jew charged with identifying and destroying the fledgling Christians, Paul became a committed follower of Jesus and eventually penned more New Testament books than any other author. Most scholars think Jesus appeared to Paul within two to three years of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension (if, for sake of clarity, we date the resurrection of Jesus at 33AD, Paul would have been converted between 34-35AD). Paul ultimately traveled as a missionary and wrote about the historicity and deity of Jesus.

In his letter to the Corinthian church, Paul includes what most scholars believe to be one of the earliest Christian creeds. The vast majority of Biblical scholars accept both the Pauline authorship and early dating of 1 Corinthians (typically locating it’s origin in the mid 50’s). Paul says something important in this letter about the earliest claims related to Jesus:

1 Corinthians 15:3-7
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.”

Paul said he had already preached information about Jesus to the Corinthians; information he had first received from others. Paul’s words here echo the language used by ancient Rabbis to describe how they would carefully memorize and transmit formal teaching through oral statements. Paul included a short creedal statement related to the historicity and deity of Jesus (and demonstrated his reverence for this information, describing it as “of first importance”). Paul provided several important pieces of data in this creed:

1. Jesus died for our sins
2. Jesus’ death was predicted by the Scripture
3. Jesus was buried
4. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day
5. Jesus’ resurrection was also predicted by the Scripture
6. Jesus appeared to Peter
7. Jesus appeared to the other disciples

Although Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is typically dated in the mid 50’s, he was referencing much earlier information he gave to the Corinthians prior to the writing of the letter. When did he first deliver this information to the brothers and sisters in Corinth? Most scholars prefer a dating of 51AD based on relevant descriptions in the Book of Acts and the historical dating related to Gallio (see Acts 18:12-17 for the relationship between Paul’s visit to Corinth and his appearance before Gallio). This means Paul communicated the data about Jesus within twenty years of the crucifixion. But when did Paul first receive this information about Jesus? To answer this question we have to examine another letter: Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 1:15-19
“But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”

Paul told the Galatians he met with Peter and James three years after his experience on the road to Damascus (where Jesus appeared to Paul). This wasn’t just a social visit. According to Paul’s choice of Greek words here (translated as “to become acquainted”), he met with James and Peter to make sense of his own experience by researching and investigating the claims of the eyewitnesses. This was an historical investigation; Paul was interviewing those who witnessed the life, teaching and miracles of Jesus, and apparently these eyewitnesses were in agreement about their observations and claims. As Paul began to work as a missionary, preaching about his experience and what he learned about Jesus from the eyewitnesses, his opportunities grew and he formed partnerships with other important first century missionaries and church leaders. Paul returned to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Timothy “after fourteen years”:

Galatians 2:1-2
“Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain…”

Scholars are divided on the precise dating of this second visit. Was it fourteen years after his experience on the Damascus road or fourteen years after his first visit with Peter and James? In either case, he now met with Peter, James and John and once again reiterated the data he learned from Peter and James to confirm he was still accurately representing their eyewitness observations. Once again the eyewitnesses affirmed the accuracy of the data; John was also present to add his eyewitness authority to the account.

Given the evidence of 1 Corinthians, Galatians and the Book of Acts, we can reconstruct the first appearance of the creedal information found in 1 Corinthians 15 (once again I will use the date of 33AD for the resurrection and ascension of Jesus for the sake of clarity):

33AD – Jesus was resurrected from the grave and ascended to heaven

34-35AD – Jesus appeared to Paul while Paul was on the road to Damascus (one to two years after the Resurrection and ascension)

37-38AD – Paul received the data about the historicity and deity of Jesus from Peter and James while visiting them in Jerusalem (two to three years after his conversion, depending how you interpret the words, “three years later”)

48-50AD – Paul corroborates the data about the historicity and deity of Jesus with John, Peter and James in the presence of Barnabas and Timothy (fourteen years after the Damascus road event or fourteen years after the first meeting with Peter and James in Jersualem)

51AD – Paul first provided data to the Corinthian Church about the historicity and deity of Jesus (during this visit to Corinth he also appeared before Gallio)

55AD – Paul writes to the Corinthian Church and reminds them of the data he previously provided them about the historicity and deity of Jesus

The early Christian creed related to the historicity and deity of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 is actually a written record of the earliest transmitted data we have about Jesus. It represents a view of Jesus expressed within four to six years of the Resurrection. There’s no reason to believe this view of Jesus was not being communicated even earlier. It would still be several years before any of the eyewitnesses would write a Gospel, but there is no mystery about what was being said about Jesus prior to the writing of the Gospels. The eyewitnesses were steadfast and consistent in their claims related to the historicity and deity of Jesus. For more information, visit Gary Habermas, an expert in this area of study: www.garyhabermas.com.
- See more at: http://coldcasechris...ZkoY5NrI.dpufWe

[shadowhawk]

More detail on the eyewitness basis of Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

[cats_lover]

There's also tons of evidence AGAINST Christianity. This is making rounds today on social media and it is really hard to impossible to explain why just about every relevant historical text of the era does NOT mention Jesus...

 

Coming back to the Platypus reply to this thread in which he discussed the possibility that Jesus never exists...

 

If the primary evidence of his existence are the Gospels, then I must recognize that we are using the Bible to prove the Bible, and understand the point of view of atheists and agnostics.

 

In the other hand, the New Testament is a collection of the texts that spoke about jesus and therefore it is natural that these texts are included on this book.

So at this point the evidence does not lead us to a solid conclusion.

Shadowhawk, after Platypus reply you write some replies about the way things were documented before (2000 years ago for example). Of course that 2000 years ago the methods to document the story were not as tidy as now. The main way that the life of Jesus was documented was in the Gospels and in the letters to his Disciples subsequently sent to different parts (as Shadowhawk explains before).

These texts were written by the Disciples of Jesus.

So, at this point in the discussion my main question is: it was usual in Israel region 2000 years ago that a normal person could read and write?

(I want an honest answer/s, I'm not trying to defend or attack the Christian religion).

Edited by cats_lover, 20 October 2014 - 08:32 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Yes, they could read and write as any historian knows.  There were huge libraries all over the Greek and Roman world.  Let me also mention the obvious, the Early Church produced the Bible not the other way around.  The ancient world was very literate.

[cats_lover]

Yes, they could read and write as any historian knows.  There were huge libraries all over the Greek and Roman world.  Let me also mention the obvious, the Early Church produced the Bible not the other way around.  The ancient world was very literate.

 

Also normal worker people? I mean everybody can write? As i know in the Middle Ages only the "rich" people could read and write, I cannot understand that 1000 years before that more people can write.
 

[shadowhawk]

Well not everyone today can read and write.    Certainly sometimes rich people are not always bright.  So it was in the ancient world.  Every child in the Jewish culture went to school and most Jews memorized the first five books of the bible by the age of 12.  The Greeks and Romans produced many great philosophers to many to try to even list here.  Most of the great questions of life were asked long before Christ.

[cats_lover]

Well not everyone today can read and write.    Certainly sometimes rich people are not always bright.  So it was in the ancient world.  Every child in the Jewish culture went to school and most Jews memorized the first five books of the bible by the age of 12.  The Greeks and Romans produced many great philosophers to many to try to even list here.  Most of the great questions of life were asked long before Christ.

 

Ok, thank you for the information
 

[Lewis Carroll]

 

Well not everyone today can read and write.    Certainly sometimes rich people are not always bright.  So it was in the ancient world.  Every child in the Jewish culture went to school and most Jews memorized the first five books of the bible by the age of 12.  The Greeks and Romans produced many great philosophers to many to try to even list here.  Most of the great questions of life were asked long before Christ.

 

Ok, thank you for the information
 

 

 

Keep in mind that Shadowhawk's answers are absurdly biased.

 

Shadowhawk:

 

"Every child in Jewish culture went to school"

Oh yea? Every single child?

 

"Most Jews memorized the first five books of the bible by age 12"

Most Jews you say? By age 12? Are you sure? Plus, keep in mind, memorization does not imply literacy. 

 

 

Just because there were "huge libraries" in the ancient world doesn't mean the average citizen and peasant had the ability to read and write. Nor does it imply they had access to these institutions. The majority of people were indeed illiterate. 

[cats_lover]

Keep in mind that Shadowhawk's answers are absurdly biased.

 

Shadowhawk:

 

"Every child in Jewish culture went to school"

Oh yea? Every single child?

 

"Most Jews memorized the first five books of the bible by age 12"

Most Jews you say? By age 12? Are you sure? Plus, keep in mind, memorization does not imply literacy. 

 

 

Just because there were "huge libraries" in the ancient world doesn't mean the average citizen and peasant had the ability to read and write. Nor does it imply they had access to these institutions. The majority of people were indeed illiterate. 

 

 

Considering the close relationship between religion and the scriptures (old Testament), I find it easy to think that at that time they trying to teach to read to their children to improve its relationship with religion.

On the other hand I find it hard to believe that everyone would have access to the scriptures before the creation of the printing press.

Anyway, I would like to see some kind of citation or bibliographic reference about the levels of literacy in year 0.
 

Edited by cats_lover, 21 October 2014 - 12:46 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I took Hebrew at a Jewish synagogue and we started out with the first five books of the bible using Children's books.  Since MajinBrain has nothing but name calling as his evidence is absurdly biased.  You are right, the printing press was not invented until far later.  What they did was make copies in scriptoriums.  The scriptures were widespread.  The LXX was everywhere available and unlike today they memorized vast sections of scripture and other materials.

[shadowhawk]

How Do Palestinian Names Lend Credence to the Gospels?

How Do Palestinian Names Lend Credence to the Gospels?  Are the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s life rooted in first century Palestine or are they legendary accounts written more than a hundred years later?  What of the so-called apocryphal gospels (e.g., Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas) that also claim to be true accounts of Jesus’s life?  A few biblical scholars claim that the apocryphal gospels deserve as much attention as the four canonical gospels.

Biblical scholar Craig Hazen, in a blog post, brings to our attention new archaeological evidence that bolsters the authenticity of the canonical gospels and undermines the authenticity of the apocryphal gospels. This also argues againt the Gospels being of late origin.  What is this new evidence that roots the canonical gospels firmly in the first century prior to 70AD?

Over the last decade, a new area of research has confirmed that the writers of the Gospels did indeed have the kind of intimate and detailed knowledge of life in that time and place. And this new research comes from an in-depth study of personal names found in the text of the Bible itself.

In 2002 an Israeli scholar by the name of Tal Ilan did some seemingly boring work that has yielded some important dividends for New Testament authentication. She sorted through documents, engravings, scraps of papyrus, ossuaries and the like from the time period surrounding Jesus and the apostles in order to make a list of over 3,000 personal names — along with whatever bits of information she could find about those names. It was as if she were compiling a phone book from ancient trash heaps.

So what? How could this list of ancient names have anything to do with the historical authenticity of the Gospel accounts?

Because of her work, it became possible for the first time to find out what personal names were the most popular during the time of Jesus and how those names were used. Why is this important? Well, if the Gospel writers really had no solid contact with the characters in the stories, if they were writing decades later and had never visited the lands about which they were writing, getting the names right would be unlikely to the point of impossible.

Hazen offers this example to drive the point home:

It would be as if a person who had never set foot out of California were attempting to write a story about people living in Portugal 60 years ago and the writer perfectly captured all the details of the personal names of the day without traveling, without the Internet, without encyclopedias or libraries. Clearly, guesses and intuitions about Portuguese names from over a half-century earlier are exceedingly unlikely to match the real situation on the ground.

So how does Ilan’s list match the names used in the four New Testament Gospels?

t this new research shows that the Gospel writers were “spot on” in regard to the popularity, frequency, proportion and usage of personal names in the text of Scripture, indicating very deep familiarity with life in the exact area and timeframe of Jesus and his earliest followers. British New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham did some exhaustive work correlating New Testament names . . .  with the list of 3,000 names compiled by Ilan and concluded the following:

“The Gospels were nearly perfect in how they captured the frequency of names among Palestinian Jews of the time. For instance, Ilan’s list of the 10 most popular names matched rank for rank the list of the most frequent names in the Gospels and Acts. This is an extraordinary confirmatory correlation.
        By contrast, if you examine the most popular Jewish names in a different region (such as Egypt) at the time, the list is dramatically different. The pattern of names does not match what we know the pattern to be in Palestine.
        Also by contrast, if you examine the names that appear in the Apocryphal Gospels (such as the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas), you discover that the frequency and proportion of names in these writings do not match what we know to be true of names from the land and time of Jesus. Hence the Apocryphal Gospels do not have the ring of authenticity with regard to personal names and are rightly called into question.”

Fascinating results! If you want to learn more about these names, I would recommend reading Richard Bauckham’s book, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, How Do Palestinian Names Lend Credence to the Gospels?” where he provides a lot more detail.
  See more at: http://www.toughques...h.0bt295zV.dpuf

[shadowhawk]

Why the Ancient Christian Record About Jesus Is the Most Reliable

 

 

"When we examine ancient history in an attempt to understand the nature of Jesus, we discover there are three separate witness accounts we have to consider. First, of course, are the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament writers. But in addition to these, there are hostile gentile eyewitness accounts of the Greek world and hostile Jewish accounts of antiquity. How are we supposed to know which group we can trust? Let’s examine each group of witnesses using the four part template I employ to evaluate eyewitnesses in my cold-case investigations. We’ll begin by reviewing what the three witness groups say about the nature of Jesus:

 

The three accounts are amazingly similar as they record the same basic testimony about the life and death of Jesus. But there are a few distinct differences between the three witness accounts from antiquity. I’ve highlighted or colored the differences to make them easier to discuss. First, you’ll notice the hostile gentile witnesses are silent on a few important points (there is no mention of the prophecies predicting Jesus, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Judas Iscariot, the beating prior to the crucifixion, or the resurrection or ascension). But this does not necessarily mean there is a contradiction with the Jewish witnesses or the Biblical account. It may simply mean ancient Gentile writers assumed their readers knew these issues, were themselves focused on other issues, or did not carefully guard the entire record (and as a result, some have now been lost).

In addition to this, you’ll note there are some dramatic differences between the Jewish account and the Gentile and Biblical record. The difference here is not in terms of the historical details of the story of Jesus, but is instead in the explanations for these details. The Jewish record affirms Jesus was said to be born of a virgin but denies this claim, arguing Jesus’ parents simply covered up the truth about Jesus’ true father. The Jewish record affirms Jesus had supernatural powers, but attributes these powers to demonic forces. Finally, the Jewish record also affirms there was an empty tomb (and Jesus’ followers claimed he was resurrected and ascended into heaven), but they deny this was true, and claim Jesus’ grave was later found in the garden next to the tomb. So while the narrative of the life of Jesus closely parallels the Biblical account, there are a number of alternative explanations offered.

So, which of the ancient records are we to believe? Why should we accept the Biblical account when there are clearly a number of other witness records available? What makes the Bible more trustworthy than the other witnesses? When a prosecutor brings an eyewitness into a courtroom, he or she needs to be very careful to bring best eyewitnesses available. After all, these folks are eventually going to be cross examined by the defense attorneys. So, prosecutors evaluate their witnesses using the four pat template I describe in Cold-Case Christianity. Let’s take a look at the criteria for reliable eyewitnesses and see if the Biblical record compares with the other ancient witness accounts.

 

1 – Were the Witnesses Even Present?
There are times when people claim to be eyewitnesses but are actually lying or grossly overstating what they saw. It’s up to the jury to decide if the witnesses are motivated by something causing them to lie (we’ll discuss this later). The more an eyewitness is able to observe, the more reliable his or her testimony. Those who have seen the most can describe the most. Those who have the most intimate knowledge of the event are clearly those who can best explain what really happened. That’s why proximity to an event is such an important issue when evaluating a witness. Let’s take a look at the proximity of the Biblical eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus:

The Biblical Eyewitnesses
No gospel in the Bible mentions the destruction of the temple in 70AD in Jerusalem (an event that would surely have been mentioned had it occurred prior to the writing of the Gospels), inferring these gospels were authored earlier than 70AD. The Book of Acts ends with Paul in captivity in Rome, prior to his execution (which historians date between 62-64AD). This reasonably indicates the Book of Acts was written before 62AD and the Gospel of Luke is written sometime before that. Many conservative scholars date the Gospel at about 55-60AD. In addition, Biblical scholars and critics alike believe Mark precedes the other Gospels, meaning it has to be written prior to 55AD (much of Mark’s Gospel is mentioned in Luke’s account). So by dating in reverse order, we can reasonably infer the Gospels are in fact written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could either verify (or falsify) the accounts.

By comparison, consider the Greek researcher and storyteller Herodotus of Halicarnassus (fifth century BCE), who is considered to be the world’s first historian. In “The Histories”, he describes the expansion of the Achaemenid empire under its kings Cyrus the Great, Cambyses and Darius I the Great, culminating in king Xerxes’ expedition in 480 BCE against the Greeks. Secular historians believe this is reliable history containing a reliable description of the people the Persians conquered. Yet the work of Herodotus is not nearly as well documented as the work of the New Testament writers. Our earliest copy of “The Histories” (written allegedly in 480 to 425BC), dates at 900AD. That is a 1,350 year gap. The earliest New Testament fragments date to within 25 t0 50 years of the writing and our earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament dates to within 300 years of the writing. There are only 8 ancient copies of “The Histories” to compare to one another, while there are over 24,000 ancient copies of the New Testament to compare to one another. The Biblical eyewitnesses were not only present to observe Jesus, they wrote and preserved their eyewitness testimony in a manner unlike any other ancient eyewitness.

The Hostile Gentile Eyewitnesses
When examining the ancient hostile Gentile accounts of Jesus, it is difficult to know whether the witnesses were actually present for much of what they describe. They date fairly close to the life of Jesus (far closer than the Jewish accounts), but they were certainly not as intimate with the historical figure of Jesus as were the disciples. But it is important to note the Gentile witnesses don’t disagree with the Biblical account in the first place.

The Hostile Jewish Eyewitnesses
The Jewish record related to Jesus is clearly reactionary. There is no evidence to suggest any of these witnesses were present to actually know or see Jesus, although this is quite possible. The Jewish record admits and confirms much of what the Biblical record proposes about Jesus. But remember the earliest record in the Talmud dates to 500AD and the earliest record in the Toledot Yeshu dates to 1000AD. These are both very late. While some of what the Jewish witnesses say may be true, they are clearly a later account of the life of Jesus and therefore are a less reliable account. It is also interesting to note the nearer the Jewish witness to the life of Jesus (i.e. Josephus), the more flattering and similar the description to the Bible. As time passes from the life of Jesus, the Jewish Record deviates from the Biblical account.

 

2 – Are the Witnesses Supported Externally?
If the testimony of an eyewitness can be supported by something other than the witnesses, we can reasonably infer the testimony to be much more reliable. In criminal court cases today, there are often fingerprints or DNA evidence substantiating what the witness described. It would be great if this kind of forensic evidence was also available when looking at ancient history, but that is not the case for the life of Jesus or any other ancient figure. Instead, we have to look at other kinds of corroborating evidences. When studying ancient history, we can look at other eyewitness accounts and at archaeology to see if a witness’s statement is reliable. Let’s take a look and see if the Biblical record holds up in these areas:

The Biblical Eyewitnesses
It’s hard to deny the archaeological corroboration of the New Testament Biblical record. When Biblical writers describe a city, it can be located on a map and in the archeological record. Unlike other scriptures from other faith systems, the New Testament is more than a collection of sayings. It is, instead, a description of history, and the geography described in the Bible actually exists in the archeological record. While this does not prove the Biblical writers were telling the truth about Jesus; it does lend support to their reliability. And in addition to the archeological verification, there are also Gentile and Jewish writers who confirm the details of the Biblical account on many important topics.

The Hostile Gentile Eyewitnesses
Again we need to recognize the Gentile account does not differ from the Biblical account on the key points. It does not, therefore, have to provide external archeological verification to prove its reliability in making an alternate claim, because it does not make an alternate claim capable of being examined with archeology. But there is one important differing claim related to the explanation of the darkness at the crucifixion. The Gentile witness (Thallus) argued the darkness was caused by a solar eclipse. The problem for this explanation lies in the scheduling of Passover, however. The Jews scheduled the Passover during a full moon, and a full moon occurs when the moon is on the “back side” of the earth. This means the earth is between the sun and the moon, making it impossible for a solar eclipse to occur (a solar eclipse can only occur when the moon passes between the sun and the earth). Astronomical records show no solar eclipse occurred anywhere near the city of Jerusalem during the years of 30-33AD. So the Gentile account of the event does not have external support.

The Hostile Jewish Eyewitnesses
The Jewish account also makes alternate claims related to several key points. This account alone argues there was a grave in the Garden adjacent to the tomb and it was here the gardeners buried the body f Jesus. It also makes claims the body was exhumed and presented to the ruling authorities. If this were true, we would expect important archeological artifacts to have been preserved by the Jews. After all, there would be a strong desire amongst the Jews to squelch the upstart Christian faith, and all it would take is the preservation of the body of Jesus to do just that. In addition, while there are present day archeological sites throughout Jerusalem verifying the details of the crucifixion story, including the location of the crucifixion, the garden and the tomb, there is no historically identified location for Jesus “true” grave in the garden. One would think the ancient Jews would monumentalize this site and cite it down through history in a manner similar to the way modern Christians have carefully preserved the archeological history of Christianity. Without this preservation, the Jewish account has no external support.

 

3 – Have the Witnesses Been Honest and Accurate in the Past?
If a witness has lied about a recollection of an event in the past, juries are allowed to disregard this witness’ testimony about any other event he or she is testifying about. Eyewitnesses are judged all the time by their past truthfulness as it can be measured by outside corroborative evidence. If I tell you something occurred, and you later find there is fingerprint or DNA evidence contradicting my claim, it would be reasonable for you to question my reliability. In a similar way, we can look at ancient historical testimonies and see if the witnesses have been honest in other areas of their testimony. If we find the eyewitness has honestly and accurately described other elements, we can assume the point we are concerned with has also been described accurately. Let’s see how the Biblical records measure up:

The Biblical Eyewitnesses
Many of the Gospel details related to the life of Jesus have been questioned by critics of the Bible. Skeptics have argued there was no recorded census at the time described in the Bible, no record of a governor in Syria named Quirinius, and no tradition of requiring people to return to their ancestral home for purposes of recording their numbers (these details are mentioned in Luke 2:1-3). But archeological findings have now revealed the Romans regularly recorded the enrollment of taxpayers and held censuses every 14 years (beginning with Augustus Caesar). In addition to this, an inscription found in Antioch tells of Quirinius being governor of Syria around 7 B.C. (evidently he was governor twice.) But that’s not all. Archaeology has proven the Biblical writers to be correct about hundreds of other details once questioned, like the existence of Lysanias (Luke 3:1), the existence of court called “the Pavement” (or “Gabbatha” as mentioned in John 19:13), the existence of Pontius Pilate, the details of Roman crucifixion, the existence of the city of Iconium (Acts 14:6) , the existence of the proconsul named Sergius Paulus (Acts 13), and the existence of a man named Gallio (Acts 18), to name just a few. Critics once thought the Biblical writers to be either mistaken or lying about these details until archeological finds in the last two centuries proved the Bible to be correct.

The Hostile Gentile Eyewitnesses
If the Gentile account is wrong about the eclipse, we have good reason to be skeptical about the claim. On the other points of similarity with the Biblical record, there is no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the account.

The Hostile Jewish Eyewitnesses
One way to examine the accuracy of this record is to measure what it says about the teaching of Jesus against who it says was empowering Him. There definitely seems to be an internal contradiction here. The Jewish writers call Jesus a wise man and a teacher who healed the lame and worked amazing deeds. At the same time, they claim he was a liar who was empowered by demonic forces. How can both descriptions be true? Do wise teachers lie? Do the demon possessed heal the lame and perform amazing deeds? There is an internal contradiction in the account.

 

4 – Do the Witnesses Have An Ulterior Motive?
Sometimes a witness can be critically evaluated based on an exposed bias. Is there something important to the eyewitness causing them to lie about their testimony? Do they have a hidden motive driving them to lie? We need to look carefully at each eyewitness and uncover their hidden biases before we can determine if they are reliable. Let’s see if there is a hidden motive behind the ancient eyewitness accounts:

The Biblical Eyewitnesses
Some would argue the Biblical writers were not being truthful because they wante to start a religious system and were willing to say anything to accomplish this goal. But is this explanation consistent with the lives (and deaths) of the apostles and original eyewitnesses? Why would they be motivated to lie considering each of them had nothing to gain from the lie itself? All of them died horrible deaths and never changed their stories about the man they knew as Jesus. While the traditions related to how the apostles died aren’t equally reliable, there are no other first century accounts reporting any of the disciples ever recanted. The traditions related to the apostolic deaths consistently reflect their commitment to their claims:

Peter was crucified head down in Rome in 66AD
Andrew was bound to death in 74AD
James, son of Zebedee, was beheaded in Jerusalem by sword (Acts 12:1-9).
John was banished to the Isle of Patmos in 96AD (Rev. 1- 9).
Phillip was crucified at Heirapole, Phryga in 52AD
Bartholomew was beaten, crucified, then beheaded in 52AD
Thomas was run through by a lance at Corehandal, East Indies in 52AD
Matthew was slain by the sword in the city of Ethiopia in about 60AD
James son of Alphaeus, was thrown from a pinnacle, beaten to death in 60AD
Thaddeus was shot to death by arrows in 72AD
Simon was crucified in Persia in 74AD

The Biblical eyewitnesses lacked the three motives we expect to see in those who lie. They gained nothing financially, and were not driven by sexual desire or the pursuit of power.

The Hostile Gentile Eyewitnesses
The Gentile witnesses are clearly motivated by their animus toward the growing nuisance the Christians had become in the Roman world. They are indifferent to Christian spiritual claims, but are more concerned with how the upstart Christians were behaving in the Empire and growing threat they were posing. Maybe that’s why their accounts agree, for the most part, with the Biblical record.

The Hostile Jewish Eyewitnesses
The Jews definitely had a motive driving their own version of the life of Christ. Jesus offensively claimed to be their Messiah. This earned Him the wrath of the Jewish leadership well documented even within the Biblical record. Unlike the Biblical writers, the Jewish leadership had everything to gain (and maintain) by being less than truthful on key points. While the Gentile and Biblical record largely agree, the Jewish record is by far the most inflammatory of the three accounts. Why? The Christian record threatened the power and social structure of first century Judaism. The Jewish leadership had a lot to lose here if Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah. And once he failed to meet their incorrect expectations (as a military Messiah) they determined to represent him in an unfavorable light. The first converts to Christianity were Jewish; a desire on the part of the Jewish establishment to stop people from converting to Christianity would, in and of itself, provide a strong motivation to be less than honest in representing the life of Jesus.

 

So, Who Can We Trust?
When investigating at any event in ancient history, we must evaluate written record and the supporting archeology. As we look at these three witness groups, we must assess them as we would any other set of witnesses. The Biblical eyewitnesses measure up under these standards. They clearly wrote their accounts early, their testimony is supported externally by the archeological evidence, they have a reliable tract record (also supported by the archeology) and they are without ulterior motive. While many skeptics argue only non-biblical sources can be trusted for the information we have about Jesus, the ancient Christian record about Jesus is the most reliable. For a much more extensive evaluation of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, please refer to Cold-Case Christianity.

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 October 2014 - 09:22 PM.

[The Brain]

54 pages of nonsense and still no evidence of god.


Oh well...

[cats_lover]

54 pages of nonsense and still no evidence of god.


Oh well...

 

I can not say that the 54 pages of the thread are nonsense because i dont read every single post...

 

Anyway, even from the scientific point of view, the existence of God is something that can not be proven (or refuted), from the logical point of view, its existence is an unfalsifiable argument.
 

Of course, for some people is more or less reasonable to believe in its existence, but in this case we do not have the help of science; and this is what makes this question so hard to deal with.

[serp777]

54 pages of nonsense and still no evidence of god.


Oh well...

 

Yeah shadowtroll keeps going on and on and on, and still nobody reads, or cares about, his TLDR garbage. Just don't even get caught up in this thread. There's nothing you could tell shadowtroll to convince him of anything.

[shadowhawk]

54 pages of nonsense and still no evidence of god.


Oh well...

There has been tons of evidence and we have even defined what evidence is.  This post has no evidence, none. 

[shadowhawk]

 

54 pages of nonsense and still no evidence of god.


Oh well...

 

I can not say that the 54 pages of the thread are nonsense because i dont read every single post...

 

Anyway, even from the scientific point of view, the existence of God is something that can not be proven (or refuted), from the logical point of view, its existence is an unfalsifiable argument.
 

Of course, for some people is more or less reasonable to believe in its existence, but in this case we do not have the help of science; and this is what makes this question so hard to deal with.

 

Science is tnot capable of answering questions about God or atheism for that matter.  You can't prove science by science.  It has many limitations which I have pointed out before.  Science cannot help us answer many questions of truth.  Science is not the sole source of truth.

[shadowhawk]

 

54 pages of nonsense and still no evidence of god.


Oh well...

 

Yeah shadowtroll keeps going on and on and on, and still nobody reads, or cares about, his TLDR garbage. Just don't even get caught up in this thread. There's nothing you could tell shadowtroll to convince him of anything.

 

Normal name calling.  Notice this post is vacant of any content.  Lots of issues have been brought up in this last section but for the willful ignorant they need not address any of them.