Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
de_skudd

The Historicity Of Jesus And Of The New Testament

Recommended Posts

I don't know about the classical sense, but today there is a slight difference between the two. Uninformed means you simple don't have the information. Ignorant means you have the information but choose to ignore it. Hence I consider myself uninformed, rather than ignorant.

33932[/snapback]

 

That would be incorrect “in the classical sense” Arch. And, as I don’t deal much in the revisionist’s sense, we’ll stick with the classical because the revisionist’s are the reason you hare having issues with this subject (as I see it).

 

Ignorant - lacking knowledge or education in general or in a specific subject, unaware of something due to a lack of knowledge, or caused by a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience. Anything else is revisionist or slang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dee, shhhhhh, ignorance can be bliss as well........... When you couple it with the denial of absolute truth!

33912[/snapback]

That is a bad combination to be sure Ron :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Dee pointed out, most of these were men who personally knew the disciples, and the disciples personally knew Jesus.

 

I only clarified it a little more with:

Yes, but they didn’t need to because they corroborated the Apostles, and the Apostles corroborated Jesus Christ with the Gospels and their letters. The “writings about the Apostles who said that Christ existed” ARE historical documents that can stand alone. But they don’t have to because of all the supporting evidence.

33775[/snapback]

All true and on point Ron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys, let's quit playing the little tit for tat game. It keeps the thread stuck in the mud. And if it continues I will close it and give out warnings. Playing these games to make a thread stuck is the same as derailing it.

 

And by the way. I see no degrees here in theology, so unless someone is going to whip one out I suggest that arguments on who knows more on the subject quits here. And accept a level playing feild or quit posting in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

Sorry it's been so long since my last part. There's a great deal of history to go through.

 

Dee, I've taken the liberty of going through your first post and summarizing all of references, including names, dates and a brief account of what they said/wrote.

When I've got the time I'll go through them again, put them in order and make a timeline from it, which we can then use to compare to other sources.

 

If you've all got a moment, could you go through this summary and make sure I've taken down everything correctly. Would be much appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

 

Flavius Josephus - Jewish historian
A.D. 37-100 (63)
-History of Jewish war
-Jewish antiquities
wrote of Jesus resurection (may have been added at later date)
wrote of James, Jesus' brother



Carius Cornelius Tacitus
A.D. 55-120 (65)
wrote of Christus, the leader of the Christians who suffered under Pilatus.


Suetonius
88 A.D.
refers to Chrestus, who 'instigated' 'Jewish' disturbances.


Pliny the younger
A.D. 61 - ~112
wrote of 'Christians' who defied Christ.


Lucian
No date
wrote of Christians who believed in Christ.


Julius Africanus 
wrote in 221 A.D.
wrote of Thallus who wrote in the 1st or 2nd century about the darkness at Christs crucifixtion. (Thallus clearly wasn't there).


Celsus
lived around 248 A.D.
Wrote 70-80 years later about Christian belief in Jesus.


The Talmud
70-200 A.D.
Spoke of 'Yeshu', who was hanged for sorcery on the eve of passover.


Mara Bar-Serapion
70 A.D.
Wrote to his son speaking of a 'wise king' who was executed by the Jews.


THE THREE BISHOPS OF ANTIOCH

Clement of Rome
95 A.D.
Wrote that the apostles recieved the Gospels from Jesus Christ, and that Christ came from God.


Polycarp of Smyrna
69-155 A.D.
Said to be a disciple of John. Claimed he has served Christ for 86 years and refused to blaspheme against him.


Ignatius of Antioch
35-110 A.D.
Said to be a student of Peter, Paul and John and a martyr.


Quadratus of Athens
~124 A.D.
A disciple of the apostles.
Said that 'our Saviour" healed and raised people from the dead. Claimed the 'dead' were still walking around even after Christ's death.


Eusebius of Caesarea
263-339 A.D.


Hegesippus
110-189 A.D.
Spoke of "James, the Lord's brother" and his connection with the apostles. Called James "The Just".

Papias
~100-150 A.D.
Spoke of most of the Disciples, claiming them to still be alive. Wrote of Mark, who was the interpreter for Peter. Also wrote of Matthew, saying his Gospel was first written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While people are checking over my summary and I start making this timeline, does anyone want to address the other point I raised earlier?

 

If the earliest Christ could have been born was 3BC (-3), and Herod died in 4BC (-4), then Herod was indeed dead before Christ was born by a year. Christ would need to have been born in 4BC or earlier (eg, 5BC) for the dates to work.

 

Are these dates correct? Herod died in 4BC, and the earliest Christ could have been born was 3BC?

 

Just something to keep the forum moving :lol:

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again,

 

I've put together a list of the 12(?) Apostles, how they died and when. I'd like to compare these to the other dates we've compiled.

 

There seems to be some dispute over the 12, and it may be that I've got listed here some who were just Jesus disciples, and not one of the 12, however they are deemed important in Biblical history and there are historical writings about them so I thought it worth including them.

 

Could people check over these and make sure these facts are correct? Also I'd like to suss out which of these people were the 12 Apostles, and which were just disciples, simply for clarity.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

 

According to tradition, all of the twelve apostles died as martyrs

during the first century A.D

 

 

Judas

Suicided.

~33 A.D.

 

James the Greater was beheaded at Jerusalem.

A.D. 44.

 

 

Philip

Preached in upper Asia. Martyred under Heliopolis, and crucified.

A.D. 54.

 

 

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

A.D. 60.

 

 

Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of

Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned

to death at Salamis

A.D. 61.

 

 

Andrew: Martyred by crucifixion at Patras.

~50-100 A.D.

Other sources say 62.

 

 

Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero

at Rome in A.D. 67.

Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to

church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to

die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died.

A.D. 64.

 

 

Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through

the streets until he was dead. Wrote his Gospel between 48 and 63 A.D.

68 A.D.

 

 

Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to

deny his faith in Christ.

A.D. 72.

 

 

Simon

Crucified in Britain.

A.D. 74.

 

 

Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was

stoned and then beheaded.

According to Hippolytus of Rome, Matthias died of old age in Jerusalem.

A.D. 80

 

 

Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the

lost. Other's claim he was not martyred.

A.D. 84.

 

 

John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil

during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously

delivered from death. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die

peacefully.

~A.D. 100.

 

James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a

hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple. When they

discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death

with a fuller's club.

Died at age 94 (~100 A.D.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While searching for all the above information I read an article on St. Luke which directed me to this:

 

1.Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

2.just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

3.Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

I was particularly interested by passage 2. It seems to suggest that Luke is saying he was not witness to the acts of Jesus, and is merely compiling the story was other sources.

 

Thoughts?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to make a few points as my time permitts.

 

It seems to me that some among us here are of the consensus that the New Testament documents were written many years after the events took place, and hence does not contain reliable information. However, the facts provided in the main post above (and elsewhere) indicate that the life of Jesus was written by eyewitnesses OR people who recorded firsthand testimony (See the Gospel of Luke 1:4).

 

There is also a seeming attempt to contradict the historical evidences by questioning the validity of the authors of the New Testament and their students by using pre-supposed opinion, Johnny-come-lately a priori scholarship references, and shifting of the dates for the lives of Church Fathers (for the correct dates, see the first post in this thread).

 

In setting the story straight, I will reiterate: The writers (of the New Testament) were all living at the same time these events transpired, and they had personal contact either with the events or with people who witnessed the events. These evidences are corroborated by events of the period, by the writers of the New Testament, by the students of some of the writers of the New Testament, by Historians within the first two centuries, by opponents of the Christians (and therefore opponents of Jesus) during the first two centuries, and by the subsequent Church Fathers of the first two centuries as handed down by their predecessors.

 

There is also strong internal testimony that the Gospels were written at an early date (contrary to the presupposed opinions of the skeptics). The Book of Acts records the missionary activity of the early Church and was written as a sequel by the same person who wrote the Gospel according to Luke. The Book of Acts ends with the apostle Paul being alive in Rome, his death not yet being recorded. And since all the other major events in Paul’s life were recorded in Acts, this by itself becomes a powerful indicator that Acts was written before Paul died. But, we have good reason to believe that Paul was put to death during Nero’s persecution (64 A.D.), which is also good evidence the Book of Acts was composed before this time.

 

So, if the Book of Acts was written before 64 A.D., then the Gospel of Luke (preceedant to Acts) had to have been composed some time before that (most likely in the late fifties or early sixties of that century). The death of Christ took place around 30 A.D., which would make the composition of Luke, at the very latest, within thirty years of the events.

 

The early Church taught that the first Gospel composed was that of Matthew, this was according to the testimony of Eusebius (amongst others), who was an early church writer. Eusebius relates that Matthew wrote down his Gospel as he was about to leave for Ethiopia. His account was largely drawn from his own experience as a disciple of Christ. This would place us still closer to the time of Christ. And these evidences leads us to believe that the first three Gospels were all composed within thirty years from the time these events occurred, a time when unfriendly eyewitnesses could contradict their testimony if it was not accurate.

 

 

I also recommend reading I Clement’s "Protepticus" and Origen’s "Against Celsus" for decent reference materials (amongst others).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While searching for all the above information I read an article on St. Luke which directed me to this:

I was particularly interested by passage 2. It seems to suggest that Luke is saying he was not witness to the acts of Jesus, and is merely compiling the story was other sources.

35923[/snapback]

This doesn’t suggest he wasn't an eyewitness Arch, it says he carefully investigated and interviewed those eyewitnesses who were there from the beginning to make an orderly account of the life of Jesus and His Apostles. I am not suggesting that Luke was an eyewitness Arch, he never indicated whether he was or wasn’t. And, because of his noted historical acumen, his work as an historian is well respected to this very day. Therefore, whether he was an eye witness has no bearing on the authenticity of the Gospel he authored.

 

So, at this point, I’m wondering where you are going with this line of thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn’t suggest he wasn't an eyewitness Arch, it says he carefully investigated and interviewed those eyewitnesses who were there from the beginning to make an orderly account of the life of Jesus and His Apostles. I am not suggesting that Luke was an eyewitness Arch, he never indicated whether he was or wasn’t.

35940[/snapback]

This line is hardly conclusive, however to me it certainly suggests he does not include himself as one of the first eye witnesses. I felt this was worth looking into.

 

EDIT: Currently reading the articles Ron linked previously. The author of the first article agrees that it is unlikely Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus.

 

And, because of his noted historical acumen, his work as an historian is well respected to this very day. Therefore, whether he was an eye witness has no bearing on the authenticity of the Gospel he authored.

35940[/snapback]

No doubt he was well respected as an historian, however I'm concerned about his accuracy of dates:

 

If the earliest Christ could have been born was 3BC (-3), and Herod died in 4BC (-4), then Herod was indeed dead before Christ was born by a year. Christ would need to have been born in 4BC or earlier (eg, 5BC) for the dates to work.

 

Are these dates correct? Herod died in 4BC, and the earliest Christ could have been born was 3BC?

If these dates are correct, then I'm afraid the authenticity of his Gospel can be called into question.

 

So, at this point, I’m wondering where you are going with this line of thought?

35940[/snapback]

There is a general consensus with Church goers that the Apostles wrote the Gospels. Some of the previous study I've done leads me to think this may not be the case. I'd like to explore this.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This line is hardly conclusive, however to me it certainly suggests he does not include himself as one of the first eye witnesses. I felt this was worth looking into.

35949[/snapback]

Although it is far more conclusive than your attempted caricature of reasoning prevalent at this thread Arch, as I stated “it says he carefully investigated and interviewed those eyewitnesses who were there from the beginning to make an orderly account of the life of Jesus and His Apostles”. So, you will need far better evidence to overturn these historical facts of Dr. Luke.

 

 

EDIT: Currently reading the articles Ron linked previously. The author of the first article agrees that it is unlikely Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus.

No doubt he was well respected as an historian, however I'm concerned about his accuracy of dates:

If these dates are correct, then I'm afraid the authenticity of his Gospel can be called into question.

35949[/snapback]

I would be more conserned about the accuracy of your dates Arch. I would also wonder who had a better bead on the acuracy of the dates, you or Dr. Luke...

 

Question one: Who was on hand to answer the questions you are asking Arch? You, or the eyewitnesses Dr. Luke interviewed?

 

Question two: Your adopted reference repository http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus gives the dates of Jesus’ birth between 8 and 6 BC, and the date of Herod’s death at between 5 and 4 BC. The math, according to your Wikipedia fits well, and should satisfy your “thirst for truth”.

 

But, the grist in the mill is this Arch; those who were there are far more reliable witnesses that any you have yet to conjure up here.

 

There is a general consensus with Church goers that the Apostles wrote the Gospels. Some of the previous study I've done leads me to think this may not be the case. I'd like to explore this.

35949[/snapback]

As was pointed out earlier Arch, the sources of your “previous” explorative studies are far less reliable, knowledgeable and antiquity based, to mount any kind of defense for the accusations you are attempting here. They are based on presupposition, circular reasoning, and plain old wantsitnottobetrue! So, you can believe anything you have a desire to (because it will still be faith based and not history based), but eventually you’ll either have to accept the truth on the New Testament’s factual historicity, or tell a lie and say it isn’t historical fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it is far more conclusive than your attempted caricature of reasoning prevalent at this thread Arch, as I stated “it says he carefully investigated and interviewed those eyewitnesses who were there from the beginning to make an orderly account of the life of Jesus and His Apostlesâ€ÂÂ. So, you will need far better evidence to overturn these historical facts of Dr. Luke.

36321[/snapback]

I agree. I hope you will be cooperative in finding these "historical facts".

 

Question one: Who was on hand to answer the questions you are asking Arch? You, or the eyewitnesses Dr. Luke interviewed?

36321[/snapback]

Hopefully that's what we'll find some answers to. Who were these witnesses? Are they trustworthy? Are they first hand witnesses? Did they even exist, or are they entirely fabricated?

 

Oh, and I got these original dates from Ron. It's not my atheist background that led me to question these dates, but the history that Christians have been teaching.

 

Question two: Your adopted reference repository http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus gives the dates of Jesus’ birth between 8 and 6 BC, and the date of Herod’s death at between 5 and 4 BC. The math, according to your Wikipedia fits well, and should satisfy your “thirst for truthâ€ÂÂ.

36321[/snapback]

Interesting, Wikipedia is the only source I've ever read that lists these dates. As good historians, I think we'll have to double check these conflicting dates.

 

As was pointed out earlier Arch, the sources of your “previous†explorative studies are far less reliable, knowledgeable and antiquity based, to mount any kind of defense for the accusations you are attempting here.

36321[/snapback]

Wow, the arrogant, obnoxious presumptions of this statement are not befitting you Dee. You have no idea what my previous studies were. This is entirely assumptive and, as you say "plain old wantsitnottobetrue"-ism.

 

They are based on presupposition, circular reasoning, and plain old wantsitnottobetrue!

36321[/snapback]

Actually they're based on the teachings of the most intelligent, faithful man I've ever met.

 

So, you can believe anything you have a desire to (because it will still be faith based and not history based), but eventually you’ll either have to accept the truth on the New Testament’s factual historicity, or tell a lie and say it isn’t historical fact.

36321[/snapback]

I'm not trying to believe anything. I'm collecting dates and putting them in order. The only belief that might come into it would be in the works of those that found the dates in the first place; I can hardly be blamed for that.

 

I can't help but feel your approaching this the wrong way. It seems every time I pose a question regarding this history, you jump down my throat and chide me for having the indecency to even ask such questions.

 

What I hope to do is produce as unbiased a timeline as possible, so anyone can come here and learn the historical truths of Jesus. You should be viewing this as an opportunity. There should be very little speculation in this forum; either the dates are there or they're not. You should have no trouble producing evidence to support your position.

 

Again, I feel the need to emphasis that my previous studies have led me to believe there was an historical Jesus. The only reason I ask these questions is to play devils advocate so that we can get a balanced view on this matter.

 

With that in mind, can we please continue without the accusations.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I hope you will be cooperative in finding these "historical facts".

Hopefully that's what we'll find some answers to. Who were these witnesses? Are they trustworthy? Are they first hand witnesses? Did they even exist, or are they entirely fabricated?

36332[/snapback]

Arch, the names of most of the witnesses were provided previously, and you know that. Your attempts at equivocation and/or deceitful misdirection here will not go unnoticed for long.

 

Oh, and I got these original dates from Ron. It's not my atheist background that led me to question these dates, but the history that Christians have been teaching.

36332[/snapback]

I’d like to see where the post is with these statements so I can check them for contextual integrity Arch. Or, are the dates being mistaken, or are you taking the statements out of context.

 

Interesting, Wikipedia is the only source I've ever read that lists these dates. As good historians, I think we'll have to double check these conflicting dates.

36332[/snapback]

Arch, I think you do realize that reconciliation of these dates (like the accuracy of most any dates in antiquity i.e.) can be speculative. And you are attempting to refute (for your own purposes?) said dates.

 

Wow, the arrogant, obnoxious presumptions of this statement are not befitting you Dee. You have no idea what my previous studies were. This is entirely assumptive and, as you say "plain old wantsitnottobetrue"-ism.

36332[/snapback]

Not arrogant Arch, I’m going by your posts here, and your attempted refutations of the historical facts using revisionist’s remarks (see page one) as though they carried historical weight.

 

 

Actually they're based on the teachings of the most intelligent, faithful man I've ever met.

36332[/snapback]

Arch, does this faithful man you claim to follow carry any information substantiated by antiquity, or is his opinion based on today’s revisionists attacks.

 

 

I'm not trying to believe anything. I'm collecting dates and putting them in order. The only belief that might come into it would be in the works of those that found the dates in the first place; I can hardly be blamed for that.

36332[/snapback]

Arch, your seeming façade of affability and naïve inquisitiveness is overshadowed by you inability to accept truths. And it is wearing thin.

 

I can't help but feel your approaching this the wrong way. It seems every time I pose a question regarding this history, you jump down my throat and chide me for having the indecency to even ask such questions.

36332[/snapback]

There is a big difference between jumping down you throat, and correcting your blatant mistakes and transparent backhanded jibes Arch. Facts have been consistently and regularly placed before you, and you continue to ignore them by prevarication and convoluted variants concerning dates that neither refute nor cast shadow on historical facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arch, the names of most of the witnesses were provided previously, and you know that. Your attempts at equivocation and/or deceitful misdirection here will not go unnoticed for long.

36375[/snapback]

I said these are some questions I'd like to answer. I didn't say they haven't been, or wont be addressed. The only deceit is in your own mind, and it's not constructive to this conversation.

 

I’d like to see where the post is with these statements so I can check them for contextual integrity Arch. Or, are the dates being mistaken, or are you taking the statements out of context. 

36375[/snapback]

I put the quotes in my first post on this forum. See post 6.

 

Arch, I think you do realize that reconciliation of these dates (like the accuracy of most any dates in antiquity i.e.) can be speculative. And you are attempting to refute (for your own purposes?) said dates.

36375[/snapback]

Of course dates can be speculative, that's why they so often overlap.

 

Currently we have two sets of dates that differ quite dramatically. I would like at least a third source to verify them. If for some reason we can't reach a conclusion we record both sets of dates and consider that either of them could be true.

 

This way anyone who comes here to read this history can make up their own mind, and do additional research with all information provided. I'm allowing people to speculate.

 

Not arrogant Arch, I’m going by your posts here, and your attempted refutations of the historical facts using revisionist’s remarks (see page one) as though they carried historical weight.

36375[/snapback]

If the historical dates I've collected are true, then they do carry historical weight. Why not try attacking the evidence, rather than my integrity?

 

Arch, does this faithful man you claim to follow carry any information substantiated by antiquity, or is his opinion based on today’s revisionists attacks.

36375[/snapback]

You are implying that "revisionists attacks" don't "carry any information substantiated by antiquity". Why aren't revisionists entitled their opinions?

 

Arch, your seeming façade of affability and naïve inquisitiveness is overshadowed by you inability to accept truths. And it is wearing thin.

36375[/snapback]

Then show me the truths and stop attacking me! If you think I'm behaving naively then teach me. And I don't mean just keep pointing me back to your first post either. Try answering some of my current questions. Not all of them are addressed in your first post. Belittling your students does little to further their knowledge.

 

There is a big difference between jumping down you throat, and correcting your blatant mistakes and transparent backhanded jibes Arch.

36375[/snapback]

What mistakes? I've given an different interpretation of the first few passages from Luke, and asked about the validity of the dates for Jesus birth. Each time I ask a new question you start insulting me and calling me names. This is very counterproductive.

 

Facts have been consistently and regularly placed before you, and you continue to ignore them by prevarication and convoluted variants concerning dates that neither refute nor cast shadow on historical facts.

36375[/snapback]

I have not ignored anything Dee. Did you miss the post where I made a summary of your works? I'm still hoping someone will get back to me and verify I took it all down correctly. Same with the dates I offered for the Apostles deaths.

 

By now we could have a timeline just about finished, and for all we know it could match up perfectly with what you've said so far. But for some reason you don't seem at all interested in these. You seem to want to spend your time attacking me and my previous teachers. For the last time Dee, please address my information and stop making this personal. If you can't do this then I'll have to assume you're more interested in making this into a sparring match and not in collecting history, and I will take my education elsewhere.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our only sources of information on Jesus' birth are the gospels of Matthew and Luke of the Bible

I'd like it if we could take the time to verify this claim and then cross-reference the two Gospels with other sources to see how accurate a date we can reach for Jesus' birth and death.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is a link from the Wikipedia article Dee provided about the dates for Jesus birth and death.

 

The entire article can be found here: Census of Quirinius

 

But the following seemed to be the most interesting part.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

 

The Census of Quirinius refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea for tax purposes taken in AD 6/7 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus and the imposition of direct Roman rule on what became Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea).[1] An account of the census was given by the first century historian Josephus,[2] who associated it with the beginning of a resistance movement that he called the Zealots.

 

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus with this historical census, while the Gospel of Matthew places the birth at least a decade earlier, during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally attempted to reconcile these accounts; most modern scholars, according to Raymond E. Brown, regard this as an error by the author of the Luke Gospel.[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is a link from the Wikipedia article Dee provided about the dates for Jesus birth and death.

 

The entire article can be found here: Census of Quirinius

 

But the following seemed to be the most interesting part.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

36409[/snapback]

I see that you want to paint the edges of the paper I submitted with more equivocations Arch. But you are still missing the bigger point. I only pointed out the dates in Wikipedia because you revere them so, but they actually mean nothing. The fact is this Arch, “there are no exacting dates!”. So your illusion of a timeline to attempt a pulling apart the New Testament can only be speculative at best.

 

But, more to the point of the above post I’m replying to, speculation is running rampant in every argument you have placed here Arch. For example, the quote you placed stated:

 

“In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus with this historical census, while the Gospel of Matthew places the birth at least a decade earlier, during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally attempted to reconcile these accounts; most modern scholars, according to Raymond E. Brown, regard this as an error by the author of the Luke Gospel.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius )

 

I would then ask you to read the Gospel of Matthew yourself and show me where he dated the birth of Christ on order to "at least a decade earlier". You may be surprised Arch, because he didn’t, he gave a period of time, not a date! He said “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem (Matt 2:1). Even Luke didn’t give a date, but a period of time. Neither Luke nor Matthew gave a date, but both gave periods of time (i.e. “during the time of King Herod” etc…), so you see Arch, your time line would be based on speculations and presupposing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said these are some questions I'd like to answer. I didn't say they haven't been, or wont be addressed. The only deceit is in your own mind, and it's not constructive to this conversation.

36406[/snapback]

This is an equivocation and misleading on your part then Arch, because you just contradicted yourself. If the questions have been previously answered, then they’ve been addressed. If you return with Ad hominem attacks against the writers of the New Testament, but fail to provide evidence to back up those postulates with facts (other than revisionists opinion), you have failed to do anything other than waste the time of the readers in this thread.

 

I put the quotes in my first post on this forum. See post 6.

36406[/snapback]

You said “I got these original dates from Ron” , to which I replied with “I’d like to see where the post is with these statements so I can check them for contextual integrity”. Post #6 has no such information.

 

Of course dates can be speculative, that's why they so often overlap.

36406[/snapback]

They are speculative, therefore; it doesn’t matter if they “overlap” or not Arch. This is another case of equivocation, quibbling and time wasting. If you have nothing more to add than equivocation, quibbling and time wasting as input to the conversation, you may want to re-think the highly subjective and speculative timeline, because it will no nothing to support or refute the historical data. It will be nothing more than a foot note.

 

Currently we have two sets of dates that differ quite dramatically. I would like at least a third source to verify them. If for some reason we can't reach a conclusion we record both sets of dates and consider that either of them could be true.

36406[/snapback]

Again, the dates are subjective and speculative at best, so verifications will be subjective and speculative as well. Therefore the conclusions will also be subjective and speculative, as will the timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This way anyone who comes here to read this history can make up their own mind, and do additional research with all information provided. I'm allowing people to speculate.

36406[/snapback]

Speculation is speculation, and does absolutely nothing to add to or subtract from fact Arch.

 

If the historical dates I've collected are true, then they do carry historical weight. Why not try attacking the evidence, rather than my integrity?

36406[/snapback]

Again, the point is this: The dates are subjective and speculative at best, so verifications will be subjective and speculative as well. Therefore the conclusions will also be subjective and speculative, as will the timeline. You are doing nothing to add to your integrity by equivocating, quibbling and time wasting, in attempting to attacking the integrity of the New Testament writers with dates you will never be able to verify Arch.

 

And I am not attacking your integrity, I am pointing out the flaws in your attacks. If your integrity takes a hit, it’s because you are still pushing the falsities built into your attacks.

 

You are implying that "revisionists attacks" don't "carry any information substantiated by antiquity". Why aren't revisionists entitled their opinions?

36406[/snapback]

They are entitled their opinions Arch. And they are just as entitled to be wrong in their opinions. When they can bring something of substance to the argument other than opinion, than the time spent on their flimsily argumentation won’t be wasted. That you would attach your argumentation to theirs shows a lack of credibility on your part Arch.

 

That has been the point all along…

 

Then show me the truths and stop attacking me! If you think I'm behaving naively then teach me. And I don't mean just keep pointing me back to your first post either. Try answering some of my current questions. Not all of them are addressed in your first post. Belittling your students does little to further their knowledge.

36406[/snapback]

Stop pretending and equivocating over obvious nonsensical argumentation Arch. If you want to dismantle the integrity of the writers of the New Testament, bring real evidence, not opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you don't seem to realise with your talk of "speculation" is that the dates you've provided fall under the same problem. There is no reason for anyone to believe the dates you've listed over the dates I have. Both fall under speculation and deserve the same amount of scrutiny.

 

But for some reason you keep referring to your dates as "historical facts" and mine as "speculation", but you've provided no reason to differentiate between the two.

 

If your speculation argument carries any weight then we may as well throw out all the dates we've compiled so far because we can't verify them. Then people could feel free to make up any dates they like and believe them, and this thread will come to an end without achieving a single thing other than ego stroking.

 

If you're interested in continuing this historical discovery in an unbiased fashion, could you please get back to me about whether I took down your dates correctly, and whether or not you think the dates of the Apostles deaths, to the best of our knowledge, are accurate.

 

Until then I'll continue my study on my own.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't believe that during a debate that there is a way of being unbiased. A debate is usually caused by bias. Without Bias, there would be no debate, and no one would believe or argue anything. A debate is an arguement, so worrying about your feelings means nothing. Provide some evidence, and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't believe that during a debate that there is a way of being unbiased.  A debate is usually caused by bias.  Without Bias, there would be no debate, and no one would believe or argue anything.  A debate is an arguement, so worrying about your feelings means nothing.  Provide some evidence, and move on.

36474[/snapback]

Those who wish to tear down and revise so they can live in denial never really provide evidence Scott. They come to places like this to cause chaos by pretending to want to learn, then attack the truth on it's fringes. Hopefully this way they can catch a few unaware.

 

Didn't Satan confuse Eve by saying "Did God really say, 'You must never eat the fruit of any tree in the garden'?"

 

His ways haven't changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms