How to really celebrate Easter...

[Ford Prefect]

I plan to drink religiously.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FireFly

playing with my brother's Wii...

Whatever floats your...

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Why would Egyptian and Persian historians even know about Jesus unless they spent time in Palestine? It's really hard to get into history books without having killed a lot of people. As for the miracles; why would they report on things they never seen and probably didn't believe.

Legends generally are written long after the subject has died. They rely on few or no eye witnesses being left to refute their claims. The gnostic gospels are examples of legends being applied to Jesus Christ. Why do you suppose it takes centuries for a catholic to be elevated to sainthood? It's a lot easier to claim someone lived a sinless life and performed miracles if everyone that knew him is long dead.

The letters that comprise the New Testament were contemporary with the subject. They speak of other eye witnesses as well who at the time of the writings were alive and able to confirm or deny the writer's claims. We also have written accounts of how many of these eye witnesses died. Often horrifically and yet remained true to their testimony. For caparison: there were only 12 men who said they seen the golden tablets that Joseph Smith said he was led to and translated into the book of Mormon. Of those twelve three recanted their testimony(it might of been 4) . None of these had to endure torture to make such confessions.

Lastly, the bible has proven to be historically accurate. Its description of geography and events have been right on the money. The Bible has also been held to a higher standard of criticism then other historical documents. Even with its remarkable track record it is still presumed to be inaccurate when another outside source isn't found to collaborate its claim.

The historians I mentioned wrote a whole history for the Roman Empire.
No credible history professor considers the Bible a reliable historical text.
THe Bible was also written a couple hundred years after the supposed death of Christ, so it is NOT contemporary.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

1. The temporal leaders of the day.

2. The religious leaders and their form of government in the first century

3. a myriad of cities with details concerning them.

4. Several accounts of occupations found in the first century

5. Roman and religious laws of the first century.

6. Shipping routes and practices including a rather unique account of a ship wreck.

7. Intimate knowledge of Roman and Jewish usage of time and language



So what have they dug up belonging to the Cree Indians that date between 1230 BC and 1190 BC? Because I mean if the haven't found anything within that 40 year period that would constitute proof in your eyes that they didn't exist for that forty years.

Your argument is silly and demonstrates the unjust standard you apply to the biblical narrative. Fortunately you don't represent the many archaeologists who as a rule will look objectively at any ancient text to find clues as where to dig for long buried history.



Ahh... The old guilty until proven innocent arguement. Yah I mean why shouldn't we just assume every man is a liar? Which begs the question: why are we talking at all. I mean we both are probably lying right now or at least repeating lies we've been told. You probably don't know a thing about this topic but, rather are making things up as you go along. Sheesh!

Its called shifting the burden of proof to the negative, which is a logical fallacy. FOr example, say you are arguing with someone who says Santa Clause is very real, and has 9 flying reindeer that pull his sleigh round the world on Christmas Eve. Noticing the extraordinary claims this person is making you demand evidence for his claim; he turns around and says, "You cannot disprove the existence of Santa Clause".
Of course you can't disprove the existence of Santa Clause, just like you can't disprove the existence of God, the tooth fairy, hob-goblins or a teapot that's orbitting the sun. There are countless things you cannot disprove, and that's not the point. Claims require evidence, before said claim can be considered provable. You are doing exactly what the guy in my Santa Clause example is doing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

The historians I mentioned wrote a whole history for the Roman Empire.
No credible history professor considers the Bible a reliable historical text.
THe Bible was also written a couple hundred years after the supposed death of Christ, so it is NOT contemporary.

You have any links, or basically anything to back that up?

Textcritic, can you weigh in on this?

On the last comment I mean.

I don't disagree that the Bible shouldn't be viewed as historical text.

I found this...

It is generally agreed that the Book of Matthew was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).

The Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the book is commonly thought to have been written around A.D. 70. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90.

The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is believed to have been penned by the Apostle John between A.D. 70 - 95.

Couple hundred years?

http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-wa...ritten-faq.htm

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

Its called shifting the burden of proof to the negative, which is a logical fallacy. FOr example, say you are arguing with someone who says Santa Clause is very real, and has 9 flying reindeer that pull his sleigh round the world on Christmas Eve. Noticing the extraordinary claims this person is making you demand evidence for his claim; he turns around and says, "You cannot disprove the existence of Santa Clause".
Of course you can't disprove the existence of Santa Clause, just like you can't disprove the existence of God, the tooth fairy, hob-goblins or a teapot that's orbitting the sun. There are countless things you cannot disprove, and that's not the point. Claims require evidence, before said claim can be considered provable. You are doing exactly what the guy in my Santa Clause example is doing.

Actually it isn't comparable. The writers aren't just saying they believe that Jesus rose from the dead, performed miracles, fulfilled 300 plus Old Testament prophesies, and ascended up into heaven. Their saying they were eyewitnesses and named scores of other eyewitnesses who could confirm their testimony. Now if several hundred people came around and said they had seen Santa Claus. Some reported independently the same encounter as others and others reported different encounters with the same person. It would be reasonable to conclude they seen someone of that description even if you were apt to believe he was a fraud.

It is not logical to presume all the witnesses lied and carried that lie to the grave.

[Deelow]

So do you guys think Jesus would've liked Zeppelin?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Deelow

So do you guys think Jesus would've liked Zeppelin?

Nah, I think he would have been more into the Beatles ... especially John. John was so spiritual. They would have been like brothers.

[redforever]

I think instead of this getting into a debate as to whether Jesus existed or not, as to him performing miracles or not, as to the historical accuracy of the bible and what not, it would be nice if everyone would just sit back and relax, loosen up your muscles instead of getting so defensive, and enjoy the day, no matter if you celebrate a religious Easter or not, or if you celebrate any other significant religious holiday at this time of year.

Peace to all of you!!!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Nah, I think he would have been more into the Beatles ... especially John. John was so spiritual. They would have been like brothers.

I agree.

Old school hippie!