[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Ummm, what’s the point? That we’re insignificant compared to the rest of the universe? Doesn’t that go against your Biblical teaching that we’re somehow special compared to the rest of the universe?
:)[/quote]
No.[/quote]
:)[/quote]
x2[/quote]
You guys didn’t watch the end of the clip, did you?
[/quote]
Till the very end. Are you suggesting that just because something is small it is insignificant?
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Ummm, what’s the point? That we’re insignificant compared to the rest of the universe? Doesn’t that go against your Biblical teaching that we’re somehow special compared to the rest of the universe?
:)[/quote]
No.[/quote]
:)[/quote]
x2[/quote]
You guys didn’t watch the end of the clip, did you?
[/quote]
Till the very end. Are you suggesting that just because something is small it is insignificant?[/quote]
I was confused on why Ninja posted that clip at all. If anything, it shows how there are many many planets out there with the possibility of life. Life is probably much more common than you think.
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Somebody point me to one historical text outside of the Bible that refers to Christ. Yes I read ZEBs link and skipped right to “The External test” which made me not want to read anything else by that author ever again, so I dont know what the rest says.
Thanks!
[/quote]
If you’re talking about historical evidence (like a Roman report of the execution), you will find none. But everyone here has already discussed this in a few threads.[/quote]
Can you sum it up for me? This is something I am interested in because I am going to write a self referential book about myself doing even cooler miracles and scatter it around the globe so that one day I can be the head of a religion once Im long gone, if that is the way it works.[/quote]
That sounds like fun, but don’t be a jerk on here.
[/quote]
I was being serious, and it was a joke.
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Somebody point me to one historical text outside of the Bible that refers to Christ. Yes I read ZEBs link and skipped right to “The External test” which made me not want to read anything else by that author ever again, so I dont know what the rest says.
Thanks!
[/quote]
If you’re talking about historical evidence (like a Roman report of the execution), you will find none. But everyone here has already discussed this in a few threads.[/quote]
Can you sum it up for me? This is something I am interested in because I am going to write a self referential book about myself doing even cooler miracles and scatter it around the globe so that one day I can be the head of a religion once Im long gone, if that is the way it works.[/quote]
That sounds like fun, but don’t be a jerk on here.
[/quote]
I was being serious, and it was a joke.[/quote]
There are historical references to Jesus outside of the bible. Josephus is one. But you can debate whether those were edited to include him.
But the big part you are missing is that the bible itself isn’t a single reference in a single work. In the bible there are lots of writings by lots of different people.
Another important point is that the sources included in the bible are only the ones from the official Christian canon. There are literally dozens of other writings by dozens of other people that reference him as a real person.
Copies of some of the sources for these accounts date back to as little as 30 years after his death. 30 years. That is amazing for historical documentation.
You can attack the divinity or Jesus all you want and the correctness of worshiping him, BUT the works in the bible are probably the best and most verified accurate writings on ancient history there are.
Attacking the history of the bible is something people who donâ??t know much about historical documentation do. It shows nothing but your bias against religion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are historical references to Jesus outside of the bible. Josephus is one. But you can debate whether those were edited to include him.
[/quote]
Josephus wasn’t a contemporary (he never met Jesus). Whether or not those were edited to include him, the fact that he never met him overrides that fact. He is not a valid source.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But the big part you are missing is that the bible itself isn’t a single reference in a single work. In the bible there are lots of writings by lots of different people.
[/quote]
You are correct, but remember two things:
Almost none of the writers could have met Jesus
All these writers were followers of Jesus (all sources believing same thing)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Another important point is that the sources included in the bible are only the ones from the official Christian canon. There are literally dozens of other writings by dozens of other people that reference him as a real person.
Copies of some of the sources for these accounts date back to as little as 30 years after his death. 30 years. That is amazing for historical documentation.
[/quote]
Yes, but where are the NON-CHRISTIAN sources for Jesus? Why do the Jewish people not tell anyone of someone starting a riot in their temples in their own text? Why isn’t their Roman documentation (from reliable sources) talking about Jesus?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can attack the divinity or Jesus all you want and the correctness of worshiping him, BUT the works in the bible are probably the best and most verified accurate writings on ancient history there are.
Attacking the history of the bible is something people who donâ??t know much about historical documentation do. It shows nothing but your bias against religion.
[/quote]
No offense, but the Bible is not a very historically accurate book. There are many errors in it and if a book is to be a good “verifiable” source, it needs other sources to agree with it. Where are these sources? Do you have one non-biblical source that discusses Jesus?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are historical references to Jesus outside of the bible. Josephus is one. But you can debate whether those were edited to include him.
[/quote]
Josephus wasn’t a contemporary (he never met Jesus). Whether or not those were edited to include him, the fact that he never met him overrides that fact. He is not a valid source.
[/quote]
Than you throw out most of ancient history including pretty much all secular histories.
You are correct, but remember two things:
Almost none of the writers could have met Jesus
All these writers were followers of Jesus (all sources believing same thing)
[/quote]
Yes, the authors could have met Jesus. Like I said there are copies of some of the writings from very near his life.
Thatâ??s not true. Christianity was not established at the time. There were many varying beliefs about him at the time. Some sources even donâ??t paint a flattering picture of him.
Yes, but where are the NON-CHRISTIAN sources for Jesus? Why do the Jewish people not tell anyone of someone starting a riot in their temples in their own text? Why isn’t their Roman documentation (from reliable sources) talking about Jesus?
[/quote]
First, as I said before, Christianity didnâ??t even exist at the time. They arenâ??t Christian sources. The fact that most of the verifiable first hand accounts tell the same story is expected of actual events. If he wasnâ??t a real person, you would expect much more varied accounts.
No there isnâ??t a Jewish document concerning a fight in a temple 2000 years ago. Is that a real question?
How about this, at the time, roman (and other secular) sources were entirely unconcerned with some lowly carpenter son who became a rabbi. Remember, during that time, Jesus was just a normal rabbi. Why would you think there should be special documentation for him? Why would a historian in the day make special note of some Jewish rabbi, even if he was a popular one?
It isnâ??t until much later that he becomes a historical figure of note, long after heâ??s already dead.
No offense, but the Bible is not a very historically accurate book. There are many errors in it and if a book is to be a good “verifiable” source, it needs other sources to agree with it. Where are these sources? Do you have one non-biblical source that discusses Jesus?
[/quote]
You know nothing of ancient history. First, please name some historical errors. Second, compare it other ancient historical writings and figures.
THIRD! The books in the bible ARE non-biblical sources. The fact that many many years later specific sources were included in a canon doesnâ??t change anything about them. AND there are numerous other sources outside the bible already mentioned.
Did you know that there are only 5 known writings on Alexander the great from ancient history? Did you know that the earliest one is from hundreds of years after he died? Did you know that 3 of those 5 works are based on the other 2? Did you know that those 2 only real sources of information directly contradict each other on many significant points?
Surely given that you now know this, you donâ??t believe Alexander the Great was real. There is literally dozens of times the amount of evidence for Jesus than ATG. And thatâ??s even considering that ATG was a freaking king who carved out one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Surely there should be hundreds if not thousands more documents about ATG than some Jewish rabbi.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Than you throw out most of ancient history including pretty much all secular histories.
[/quote]
If a source is not verifiable, you should at least discredit it. I don’t see how you could disagree with this.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, the authors could have met Jesus. Like I said there are copies of some of the writings from very near his life.
Thatâ??s not true. Christianity was not established at the time. There were many varying beliefs about him at the time. Some sources even donâ??t paint a flattering picture of him.
[/quote]
30-50 years would have put these people at 60-70+ years old for the earliest writers. Why isn’t there anyone that directly wrote about him WHEN THEY SAW HIM??
Why didn’t the Jews write about Jesus? Why didn’t passing Buddhists or any Romans? Answer me that.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How about this, at the time, roman (and other secular) sources were entirely unconcerned with some lowly carpenter son who became a rabbi. Remember, during that time, Jesus was just a normal rabbi. Why would you think there should be special documentation for him? Why would a historian in the day make special note of some Jewish rabbi, even if he was a popular one?
[/quote]
I’m sure wouldn’t write about a lowly carpenter. But if he started performing miracles and raising people from the dead, I think I would write a paragraph or two.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You know nothing of ancient history. First, please name some historical errors.
[/quote]
There are a lot of them. This has been discussed…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Second, compare it other ancient historical writings and figures.
[/quote]
Okay, Battle of the Lupia River. Pretty neat battle!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Did you know that there are only 5 known writings on Alexander the great from ancient history? Did you know that the earliest one is from hundreds of years after he died? Did you know that 3 of those 5 works are based on the other 2? Did you know that those 2 only real sources of information directly contradict each other on many significant points?
Surely given that you now know this, you donâ??t believe Alexander the Great was real. There is literally dozens of times the amount of evidence for Jesus than ATG. And thatâ??s even considering that ATG was a freaking king who carved out one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Surely there should be hundreds if not thousands more documents about ATG than some Jewish rabbi.
[/quote]
There is evidence that Alexander the Great existed from MULTIPLE sources that DID NOT HAVE AN INTEREST. For instance, his enemies. That’s the difference.
You still haven’t presented any non-biblical evidence Jesus existed.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Than you throw out most of ancient history including pretty much all secular histories.
[/quote]
If a source is not verifiable, you should at least discredit it. I don’t see how you could disagree with this.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, the authors could have met Jesus. Like I said there are copies of some of the writings from very near his life.
That�¢??s not true. Christianity was not established at the time. There were many varying beliefs about him at the time. Some sources even don�¢??t paint a flattering picture of him.
[/quote]
30-50 years would have put these people at 60-70+ years old for the earliest writers. Why isn’t there anyone that directly wrote about him WHEN THEY SAW HIM??
Why didn’t the Jews write about Jesus? Why didn’t passing Buddhists or any Romans? Answer me that.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How about this, at the time, roman (and other secular) sources were entirely unconcerned with some lowly carpenter son who became a rabbi. Remember, during that time, Jesus was just a normal rabbi. Why would you think there should be special documentation for him? Why would a historian in the day make special note of some Jewish rabbi, even if he was a popular one?
[/quote]
I’m sure wouldn’t write about a lowly carpenter. But if he started performing miracles and raising people from the dead, I think I would write a paragraph or two.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You know nothing of ancient history. First, please name some historical errors.
[/quote]
There are a lot of them. This has been discussed…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Second, compare it other ancient historical writings and figures.
[/quote]
Okay, Battle of the Lupia River. Pretty neat battle!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Did you know that there are only 5 known writings on Alexander the great from ancient history? Did you know that the earliest one is from hundreds of years after he died? Did you know that 3 of those 5 works are based on the other 2? Did you know that those 2 only real sources of information directly contradict each other on many significant points?
Surely given that you now know this, you don�¢??t believe Alexander the Great was real. There is literally dozens of times the amount of evidence for Jesus than ATG. And that�¢??s even considering that ATG was a freaking king who carved out one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Surely there should be hundreds if not thousands more documents about ATG than some Jewish rabbi.
[/quote]
There is evidence that Alexander the Great existed from MULTIPLE sources that DID NOT HAVE AN INTEREST. For instance, his enemies. That’s the difference.
You still haven’t presented any non-biblical evidence Jesus existed.
[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Than you throw out most of ancient history including pretty much all secular histories.
[/quote]
If a source is not verifiable, you should at least discredit it. I don’t see how you could disagree with this.
[/quote]
Verifiable and first hand are 2 different things. There are essentially no first hand account in ancient history period.
30-50 years would have put these people at 60-70+ years old for the earliest writers. Why isn’t there anyone that directly wrote about him WHEN THEY SAW HIM??
[/quote]
No, there are copies of writings that date to within 30 years. That isn’t when they were written.
they did. There are accounts, far more than youâ??d actually expect given his stature.
I’m sure wouldn’t write about a lowly carpenter. But if he started performing miracles and raising people from the dead, I think I would write a paragraph or two.
[/quote]
â??Miracleâ?? claims were not that unusual.
There are a lot of them. This has been discussed…
[/quote]
No, not compared to other ancient historical documents. For example the Romans themselves were bad for using â??historicalâ?? writing as a kind of propaganda. Or further, the Egyptians always omitted any defeat from their historical writings.
Okay, Battle of the Lupia River. Pretty neat battle!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Did you know that there are only 5 known writings on Alexander the great from ancient history? Did you know that the earliest one is from hundreds of years after he died? Did you know that 3 of those 5 works are based on the other 2? Did you know that those 2 only real sources of information directly contradict each other on many significant points?
Surely given that you now know this, you don�¢??t believe Alexander the Great was real. There is literally dozens of times the amount of evidence for Jesus than ATG. And that�¢??s even considering that ATG was a freaking king who carved out one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Surely there should be hundreds if not thousands more documents about ATG than some Jewish rabbi.
[/quote]
There is evidence that Alexander the Great existed from MULTIPLE sources that DID NOT HAVE AN INTEREST. For instance, his enemies. That’s the difference.
You still haven’t presented any non-biblical evidence Jesus existed.
[/quote]
NO, you are outright bullshitting. 100%. There are no other accounts of ATG. And those that are there have a huge bias.
And there are non-flattering and “non-biased” records of Jesus. Lots and lots and lots of them.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Ummm, what’s the point? That we’re insignificant compared to the rest of the universe? Doesn’t that go against your Biblical teaching that we’re somehow special compared to the rest of the universe?
:)[/quote]
No.[/quote]
:)[/quote]
x2[/quote]
You guys didn’t watch the end of the clip, did you?
[/quote]
Till the very end. Are you suggesting that just because something is small it is insignificant?[/quote]
I was confused on why Ninja posted that clip at all. If anything, it shows how there are many many planets out there with the possibility of life. Life is probably much more common than you think.[/quote]
Other than the planets in our solar system, everything on there was a form of star. But possibility of life on other planets doesn’t change the point of my question, nor does it change any of my beliefs. I’d still like you to explain your insignificant comment. Do you feel that just because something is small, it’s insignificant?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Than you throw out most of ancient history including pretty much all secular histories.
[/quote]
If a source is not verifiable, you should at least discredit it. I don’t see how you could disagree with this.
[/quote]
Verifiable and first hand are 2 different things. There are essentially no first hand account in ancient history period.
30-50 years would have put these people at 60-70+ years old for the earliest writers. Why isn’t there anyone that directly wrote about him WHEN THEY SAW HIM??
[/quote]
No, there are copies of writings that date to within 30 years. That isn’t when they were written.
they did. There are accounts, far more than youâ??d actually expect given his stature.
I’m sure wouldn’t write about a lowly carpenter. But if he started performing miracles and raising people from the dead, I think I would write a paragraph or two.
[/quote]
â??Miracleâ?? claims were not that unusual.
There are a lot of them. This has been discussed…
[/quote]
No, not compared to other ancient historical documents. For example the Romans themselves were bad for using â??historicalâ?? writing as a kind of propaganda. Or further, the Egyptians always omitted any defeat from their historical writings.
Okay, Battle of the Lupia River. Pretty neat battle!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Did you know that there are only 5 known writings on Alexander the great from ancient history? Did you know that the earliest one is from hundreds of years after he died? Did you know that 3 of those 5 works are based on the other 2? Did you know that those 2 only real sources of information directly contradict each other on many significant points?
Surely given that you now know this, you don�?�¢??t believe Alexander the Great was real. There is literally dozens of times the amount of evidence for Jesus than ATG. And that�?�¢??s even considering that ATG was a freaking king who carved out one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Surely there should be hundreds if not thousands more documents about ATG than some Jewish rabbi.
[/quote]
There is evidence that Alexander the Great existed from MULTIPLE sources that DID NOT HAVE AN INTEREST. For instance, his enemies. That’s the difference.
You still haven’t presented any non-biblical evidence Jesus existed.
[/quote]
NO, you are outright bullshitting. 100%. There are no other accounts of ATG. And those that are there have a huge bias.
And there are non-flattering and “non-biased” records of Jesus. Lots and lots and lots of them.
[/quote]
You do realize that all of history is hearsay? We’re trusting that people of the past are telling us the truth.
You do realize that all of history is hearsay? We’re trusting that people of the past are telling us the truth. [/quote]
Yup. But literally, in Alexanders case, we are trusting two people writing hundreds of years after the fact to tell the truth about un-known people supposedly telling the truth writing before them.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Than you throw out most of ancient history including pretty much all secular histories.
[/quote]
If a source is not verifiable, you should at least discredit it. I don’t see how you could disagree with this.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, the authors could have met Jesus. Like I said there are copies of some of the writings from very near his life.
That�?�¢??s not true. Christianity was not established at the time. There were many varying beliefs about him at the time. Some sources even don�?�¢??t paint a flattering picture of him.
[/quote]
30-50 years would have put these people at 60-70+ years old for the earliest writers. Why isn’t there anyone that directly wrote about him WHEN THEY SAW HIM??
Why didn’t the Jews write about Jesus? Why didn’t passing Buddhists or any Romans? Answer me that.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How about this, at the time, roman (and other secular) sources were entirely unconcerned with some lowly carpenter son who became a rabbi. Remember, during that time, Jesus was just a normal rabbi. Why would you think there should be special documentation for him? Why would a historian in the day make special note of some Jewish rabbi, even if he was a popular one?
[/quote]
I’m sure wouldn’t write about a lowly carpenter. But if he started performing miracles and raising people from the dead, I think I would write a paragraph or two.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You know nothing of ancient history. First, please name some historical errors.
[/quote]
There are a lot of them. This has been discussed…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Second, compare it other ancient historical writings and figures.
[/quote]
Okay, Battle of the Lupia River. Pretty neat battle!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Did you know that there are only 5 known writings on Alexander the great from ancient history? Did you know that the earliest one is from hundreds of years after he died? Did you know that 3 of those 5 works are based on the other 2? Did you know that those 2 only real sources of information directly contradict each other on many significant points?
Surely given that you now know this, you don�?�¢??t believe Alexander the Great was real. There is literally dozens of times the amount of evidence for Jesus than ATG. And that�?�¢??s even considering that ATG was a freaking king who carved out one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Surely there should be hundreds if not thousands more documents about ATG than some Jewish rabbi.
[/quote]
There is evidence that Alexander the Great existed from MULTIPLE sources that DID NOT HAVE AN INTEREST. For instance, his enemies. That’s the difference.
You still haven’t presented any non-biblical evidence Jesus existed.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
Other than the planets in our solar system, everything on there was a form of star. But possibility of life on other planets doesn’t change the point of my question, nor does it change any of my beliefs. I’d still like you to explain your insignificant comment. Do you feel that just because something is small, it’s insignificant?[/quote]
In answering your question: small things can be very important or useless. It depends.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
2) Why didn’t the Jews write about Jesus? Why didn’t passing Buddhists or any Romans? Answer me that.
[/quote]
[quote] DoubleDuce wrote:
they did. There are accounts, far more than you�??�??�??�??�?�¢??d actually expect given his stature.
[/quote]
Please present one of these that’s Contemporaneous.[/quote]
Sure.
Mathew
Mark
Luke
John
All Jewish first hand accounts.
[/quote]
When I say Jews, I meant the Jewish establishment, not Jews becoming Christians. Give me other accounts beyond these.
BTW, now prove that they were actually the authors of those books
[/quote]
Okay, if he was the Lord, wouldn’t you expect all Jewish first hand accounts to be of Jews becoming “christian”. Though none of those mentioned ever considered themselves anything but Jewish. And those sources are more vetted and verified for accuracy that any other writings of the time. The early church did a great job weeding out the sources with questionable authenticity.
So, how bout those alexander the great sources?
Oh, and why exactly is it that you get to set up all these special hoops that have to be jumped through to prove jesus?
x2[/quote]