Yawn- contest it then Warden. What historical figure has more attributing sources than Jesus?
Non-Christian:
Josephus
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Babylonian Talmud
Lucian
Mara bar-Serapion
Thallus
Phlegon
Suetonius
Celsus
The Toledot Yeshu
Biblical:
Old Testament for telling
4 Gospels
Acts
Paul’s letters and epistles
Christian historians
Origen
Justin Martyr
Augustine
Peter
Polycarp
Ignatius
MeLito of Sardis
Irenaeus of Lyons
How many more you want? Go find a figure in history and list their independent sources.
Worked what out? The information that I GAVE YOU? this isn’t embarrassing for me. You’re reaching because you’re closed minded.
Now you resort to lying?
More lies- “doesn’t know if the earth is round or not” is what I said.
You’re free to believe in fairy tales if you’d like. If you believe we went to the moon and live streamed it 70 years ago, but can’t duplicate that effort and technology today, go ahead. Doesn’t make a difference to me.
Let’s see your list of another figure in history.
And I think you’re revealing yourself for who you are (we’ve always known)
A dramatic, judgmental, egotist who spends his time coming to a message board of a team he doesn’t follow to engage with people he doesn’t know to simply rile people up.
I absolutely believe science can answer these questions. But then, I grew up thinking that science and God went hand in hand. I never saw the battle between the two that everybody else does.
Plainly put, if God exists, he can be explained with science. You yourself delved into this territory with a scientific explanation, by saying that God must exist outside of time and space, didn’t you? You yourself based your logic on a scientific explanation of God’s existence.
I’ll even go further. If magic exists, it could be explained by science. If ghosts exist, they could be explained by science. If there is a such at thing as a soul and an afterlife, there would be a scientific explanation for them. That’s where I’m coming from.
Yes but the flood predated the writing of the Bible. Other flood myths predate the Bible.
I’m curious, what year are you ballparking the Great Flood at?
Well, it’s more plausible that Christians are recounting a previous story, seeing as how it happened before the Bible existed. That said, there’s nothing wrong with the Bible recounting old history, but pretending the Bible predicted this event is shaky ground.
You can FULL STOP right here. Nothing else needs to be said.
You originally were implying that the historicity of the bible is verifiable amongst events of the time. Which is how you come to believe. Now if you have authors writing chapters years or centuries later, forgive my skepticism of your mysticism. You logically tried to prove why you believe, I vehemently disagree with that logic. You would be better off claiming faith, which is a good place to hide.
GSC You certainly have a formidable knowledge of religion. No doubt about your intelligence and ability to explain your beliefs, but in the end they are only beliefs and cannot be scientifically tested for validity. There is definitely an intelligent design to the universe, but to ascribe its creation to a deity is just not IMO a credible explanation.
I have high regard for the Bible. It is a book of well-written stories that have great appeal to readers who immerse themselves in its contents. There is a great deal of wisdom imparted which attests to the development of universal ethics among mankind, but the supernatural part and of course the conferring of eternal life is granted only to those who believe. Were religion truth that you claim, it should be immutable fact, not based on slavish belief.
As the world’s knowledge increases, I see a diminished future in religions. I also see religion and politics to be historically intertwined. In the French language, religions are referred to as les cultes whereas in English the word cult is a pejorative word. Perhaps the French have it right. Historically, religion and science have frequently clashed. As a science major, my faith is in science. Without proof, I refuse to accept religion. I regard religions being no more than appealing myths invented by humans.
My girlfriend is an avid Christian, and since I love her, I am dragged to churches now and then. I find church to be an exceedingly dull experience unless there is a good choir. As I’ve said in the past, I attend midnight mass every Christmas at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in downtown Pensacola, whose parishioners are mostly African Americans/ I go there because their choir is just wonderful, and I like Christmas music. The priest is white and his Christmas address usually lasts no more than ten minutes. When the service closes everyone hugs one another and I enjoy the spirit of human brotherhood. I lament that the brotherhood i s of such short duration.
I further believe that if I am wrong, and God does exist, that God in my case will be just and forgiving regarding past indiscretions and have an admission to Heaven policy resembling an ideal border immigration policy.
Paul: Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon (possibly the book of Hebrews)
Peter: 1st and 2nd Peter
Which are disputed? All are contemporaries of their time.
Here’s the thing GSC. You claim to be very learned on the subject, but you contradict yourself and/or use fuzzy logic.
You claim the Bible predicted the Great Flood, and use that as proof of the bible’s credibility, but then admit that the author was Moses who lived years/centuries after the fact.
I mean, we’re not even digging deep into the Bible. I’m asking for your foundation of belief in one famous Bible event and you have little to offer in reply. This is my point about you being a skeptic only when convenient.
Maybe I took what you said wrong then, but this is the exchange I’m talking about:
My question was this: Let’s stipulate that there was a Great Flood that happened millennia ago and we’ve found proof of it. All the Bible does is tell a story about a historical event, and it’s a story that’s been told many times including before. So what gives credence that the Flood was sent by God?
And your answer is: Because Moses wrote a story about a past event?
Do you see how shabby that reasoning is?
This is an example of an origin story. Almost every single African or Native America myth has this structure. “And that’s why the leopard has stripes.” “And that’s why the Fox is so clever.” Etc. But the fact that “OMG leopards actually have stripes!” does not lend an ounce of credence to the origin story, and the fact that an actual Great Flood happened does not lend an ounce of credence to the story of God sending it.
Get what I’m saying?
So, skeptic that you are, why do you believe it was God who sent the Flood?
If you follow this line of thinking, there’s also no evidence of Adam and Eve existing or than being an accepted fact. I will believe the Bible here. I recognize your right not to believe, or in your case, no longer believe.
There is no historical evidence for the person of Moses extra-biblically. What I mean by these is no manuscript, or report, or document exists, outside of the Bible, that mentions Moses.
Point 1 - we know that Egyptian historians chose to not report persons or events that were embarrassing to their Pharohs.
Point 2 - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Meaning- just because we haven’t found evidence yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist somewhere. We’re talking about locating a single man who lived 2,000 years ago.
Point 3 - we do have evidence for the Exodus.
For instance, there’s been a lot of work done in Nuweiba Beach where corals shaped as chariots, wheels and spears have been found.
There is also evidence for other genesis stories so you’d have to scratch your head and say, why would they make up the Exodus when the Tower of Babel and the Flood and multiple other incidents have been confirmed? Doesn’t make sense.