I agree I loathe people who,try to force, coerce, or proselytize to others that their faith is best or the only 'right one' or any of that. It is not up to anyone else what spirituality another chooses to accept and/or reject.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
It's full of scripture, how could we go wrong?
faroukfarouk
Active Member
The Noble Quraan is also scripture.Would you accept it as credible?
I suppose any book of scriptures is as credible as the next.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yeah, sure - indeed you can quote. What you seem unable to do is form an argument.
The problem would be that to do so would be both pointless and irrelevant. It coyld not lead to evidence.
BINGO!! Congratulations Legion! You have won the golden crocoduck award for repeating the same boast one zillion times. Yes dear - we know you can read old books
Last edited:
The thing is is that there is more scripture for Jesus than for any other religious figure including Moses.
We could call the scriptures 'evidence for an historical Jesus' and declare that we have more evidence for an historical Jesus than for anyone in antiquity.
How brilliant is that?
Oh, and don't forget to quote wiki.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
LOL Oh ok, so the idea is that the more copies of texts about somebody you have - the more realer they are? Got it!
outhouse
Atheistically
Bias much?
So a source a few decades later, has the same credibility as one 600 year later?
Nice methodology
McBell
Unbound
faroukfarouk
Active Member
Bias much?
So a source a few decades later, has the same credibility as one 600 year later?
Nice methodology
So what makes the bible credible evidence?
Yet what about the fact that most of it was written many years post mortem and that not one person can prove, without doubt, that the bible even tells some credible evidence. The book is flawed. It contains too many errors and contradictions to be accepted at face value. Most scholars will admit the existence of someone who was like Jesus but even the name can't be proven without doubt. Taticus, Josephus and so on, provide some evidence. But only some. We don't even know who wrote the majority of the NT. we can speculate but that is all. So this alleged 'scripture' is subject to much skepticism.
Once again: his name was Tacitus.
And yet people declare that this scripture is evidence of something other than scripture, that it is evidence of things that actually happened. Josephus' works are not only late but they provide evidence of tampering by their Christian custodians and Tacitus is far too late to be regarded for anything other than a passing on of what Christian followers believed in the 2nd century. Some people are more easily convinced than others, that is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from all of this, IMO.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Credible for what exactly?
When it comes to historical possibilities, I can tell you a book written 20 years after a possible event has a thousand times more credibility then one written 600 years later that was plagiarized from the earliest sources.
outhouse
Atheistically
But not all of it.
No scripture is a term religious people use.
Historians call it text.
When text is analyzed, it was not all devoid of historical elements. That is a fact.
I never said the scriptures were not useless. Mea culpa if my posts seems to intimate that. I agree about Tacitus and Josephus but they do have their place. And as for passing on the information to build the faith, we could not agree more. As for the scriptures, they are intriguing but I always wonder...why not the excluded books? What about them caused them to be excluded? Some are lovely and seems to even, IMO, more strongly paint the picture Christianity was trying to impart. Like Thomas, Simon and more.
Precisely outhouse. I have always said the texts/gospels, etc have historical importance, to say otherwise is rather obtuse, IMO. But for me, there are larger questions here that have not been broached. Why the excluded texts? What about the threatened the councils of Nicea and Trent? Did they contain information that ran contrary to what they were making, in the RCC? Did Mary Magdalene and her book, if they knew of it, threaten the image of a chaste rabbi who never got married and if so, why would that tarnish the image of this man?
outhouse
Atheistically
Was not hers.
Just much later communities attributing their values to her. Women did play an important part of early pater familias in this movement. These traditions should have been kept alive by some for generations. And its what we see.
Outhouse, I figured you would not that I knew that. I was referring to the txt in the Nag Hammadi library bearing her name. Not that she actually wrote it.