Why do you ask for extra-biblical evidence for Jesus? Haven't you studied and looked into it yet? And why do you throw the New Testament under the bus? Better have a great argument for doing so.
The term "error" is too widely used. If there was one piece of bread or two pieces does not concern the historicity of the text. It is not important, yet all discrepancies are counted. Therefore, the smallest of things (including spellings errors) are all labeled errors. The number of relevant errors is relatively small.
No, that's what you're saying, and it's dead wrong.
Jesus is Risen in all four historical Gospels and various epistles.
There are many stories by different people in one book yes that is true but that doesn't make it accurate especially* with all the discrepanciesThe mistakes are often inter-lingual. When translating something from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to German to English, the English doesn't always translate back perfectly. However, it's still pretty close, yet they count them as mistakes.
Equally, when the manuscript is translated from Aramaic to Greek to Serbian to Czech to Polish back into Czech and then to Romanian, you get differences.
The "errors" have to do largely with things like "did he 'hear' the voice or did he 'understand' the voice?" and "Was the mark of the beast 666 or 616?". Then, as soon as they find a new manuscript, it's checked with every other manuscript. The manuscript could have 10 words, but if something is plural, it may add up to 1000 mistakes because we have 1000 manuscripts that have the word singular.
Basically, the mistakes are negligible.
The Bible is not proof that the Bible is true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're claiming resurrection. You need more than just the book it's found in.
The old testament does not prove it just the new. If you can't show any other but one story one myth then why should anyone belive it as anything else but that .. a fable
There are many stories by different people in one book yes that is true but that doesn't make it accurate especially* with all the discrepancies
*Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb had been rolled away
Matthew 28:1-2 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb was still in place and would be rolled away later
And
Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple
They have very different ideas on what happened.
Even on the things that Jesus could do as he couldn't get even get a fig to bear fruit in Mathew.
If you do your due-diligence and really study the New Testament in depth, you will find the truth. Because right now you don't possess it when it comes to the historical Jesus.
I can recommend a book for you to start with, written by a very knowledgeable scholar.
View attachment 67183669
You know, if you put these on a timeline all of these would disappear as conflicts. Of course this has already been done by Simon Greenleaf. You might want to take some time and study up on it to see the errors in your posting.
Harmony of the Resurrection accounts
Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts
p.s. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection. Try squirming out of that one.
Nonsense, and believe whatever you want, I really don't care.
I find the new testament to be inane , and it offers nothing of value , but I can't deny a book suggestion .
The age of reason by Thomas paine is a good book which I suggest you read.
I shall, but pretty much your only way to debate is through dismissal and deflection, you cannot produce anything of credible evidence beyond the Bible. If this were true, there should be many records of the event in various forms from government documents to accounts beyond just his followers credibly documenting Jesus walking around after he was verifiably killed.
But you ain't got it. So I guess the resurrection has been busted.
Already read it. The Historical Jesus is better by far.
What is the fundamental difference between prayer and witchcraft? Obviously excluding "one of them works," since that will lead to a wild goose chase over "which one."
In specific terms, how is it fundamentally different to beseech a spiritual power to intercede on your behalf and... beseech a spiritual power to intercede on your behalf?
Intent and execution.
You know, if you put these on a timeline all of these would disappear as conflicts. Of course this has already been done by Simon Greenleaf. You might want to take some time and study up on it to see the errors in your posting.
Harmony of the Resurrection accounts
Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts
p.s. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection. Try squirming out of that one.
That greenleaf essay is pretty piss poor, full of unreasonable assumptions, logical fallacies, and a whole bunch of garbage. Can you do better than that?
Nice try, But Jesus is God and he and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are one in essence.
As for your links, document where and when Christianity allegedly borrowed or copied from your pagan myths. Specifics, please. If you can't produce that then your argument falls apart.
Your analysis of it is sophomoric and unscholarly.
OK.. Paragraph 1. Here Greenleaf begins to show his intentions, and also is starting to show his bias. By quoting Lord Bacon, Simon Greenleaf is equating science and religion as equal. He also is assuming the Christian version of God as being omniscience, and involved in human affairs.In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as* possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction.* There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.* "There is no other entrance," says Lord Bacon, "to the kingdom of man, which is founded in the sciences, than to the kingdom of heaven, into which no one can enter but in the character of a little child."* The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason.* The investigation, moreover, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the subject--a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed.
This paragraph basically establishes that for Greenleaf’s purpose, the God he is assuming is the Christian God, and also assuming that anything that science will discover will prove Christianity correct in all details. He shows his intention to propose evidence to convince people it’s true.In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer."
The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general examination of the evidences upon any general examination of the evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the testimony of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals. The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means which are there employed. The importance of the facts testified, and their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can make no difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the evidence. It is still the evidence of matters of fact, capable of being seen and known and related, as well by one man as by another. And if the testimony of the Evangelist, supposing it to be relevant and material to the issue in a question of property or of personal right, between man and man, in a court of justice, ought to be believed and have weight; then, upon the like principles, it ought to receive our entire credit here. But if, on the other hand, we should be justified in rejecting it, if there testified on oath, then, supposing our rules of evidence to be sound, we may be excused if we hesitate elsewhere to give it credence.
Here he is saying that the truth of Christianity has been established, and he is not going to address it here. Unfortunately for Simon, the beliefs about what Christianity is for a large part is the very documents he is professing to be examining. Simon Greenleafs claim of being objective, and using logic is further damaged by his extreme strong bias here. No facts, just pure devotion and a statement of faith so far in this essay.The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries.* This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true. That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true. He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being.* Be it the rude-carved idol of his own fabrication, or the unseen divinity that stirs within him, it is still the object of his adoration. This trait in the character of man is so uniform, that it may safely be assumed, either as one of the original attributes of his nature, or as necessarily resulting from the action of one or more of those attributes.
Tell that to somebody who believes your nonsense.
And watch out for that first step into eternity.
And watch out for that first step into eternity.
<yawn>
There's nothing in the last five posts that in any way works in the skeptic's favor.
They can't bust the resurrection and they're angry about it.
<yawn>
There's nothing in the last five posts that in any way works in the skeptic's favor.
They can't bust the resurrection and they're angry about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?