Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[Spartan]

Oh, okay, so then you were lying in post #1045?

Could you answer my questions?
Or are you just here to play games and try to work people into a tizzy?

You should put your sophomoric, anti-Christianity nonsense on hold for a year or two and go back and study the Bible / New Testament until you come to a better understanding on why you're constantly on the wrong side of the issues.

 

[lukethethird]

So, no need to copy Mark.

The authors of Matthew and Luke copied gMark almost word for word, tweeking it in some places to suit their own agendas, correcting geographical errors, that much can be observed by comparing them. wiki the Synoptic Problem.

 

[Spartan]

The authors of Matthew and Luke copied gMark almost word for word, tweeking it in some places to suit their own agendas, correcting geographical errors, that much can be observed by comparing them. wiki the Synoptic Problem.

Nuts. Show me your best ONE (1 - just one, your best ONE) geographical error that you're talking about. Cite the scripture #(s) and your argument.

 

[joelr]

That's what your post here is - fiction.

There should be no doubt that Matthew and Peter and John, etc., all likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught.

That's funny, call my post fiction but then instead of proving it you make up a story about a campfire and start it with "likely"???

Acts has been proven to be historical fiction. Richard Pervo's work has been peer reviewed and accepted as fact in the historicity field.
Even Christian scholars usually admit this fact. It's one big re-write.

"In fact, Acts has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a work of apologetic historical fiction, and the scholarship of Richard Pervo conclusively demonstrates this to be the case. Regarding any historical sources that Luke may have used for Acts, the only one that has been confirmed with any probability was that of Josephus (a person who never wrote about Jesus Christ nor Christianity, yet was likely used by Luke for background material), and although there may have been more historical sources than Josephus, we simply don’t have any evidence preserved from those other possible historians to make a case one way or the other. All of the other sources that we can discern within Acts are literary sources, not historical ones. Included in these literary sources is what may possibly have been a (now-lost) hagiographical fabrication, and basically a rewrite of the Elijah-Elisha narrative in some of the Old Testament (OT) texts of Kings, although placing Paul and Jesus in the main roles instead, which obviously would have been a literary source of historical fiction (not any kind of historical account).

The scholar Thomas Brodie has argued that this evident reworking of the Kings narrative starts in Luke’s Gospel and continues on until Acts chapter 15, thus indicating that Luke either integrated this literary creation into his story or he used an underlying source text, such as some previous Gospel that not only covered the acts of Jesus but also the acts of the apostles.

As an example, the scholar Dennis MacDonald has shown that Luke also reworked fictional tales written by Homer, replacing the characters and some of the outcomes as needed to suit his literary purposes.

However, the source that Acts seems to employ more than any other is the Septuagint. While MacDonald has shown that the overall structure of the Peter and Cornelius story is based on writings from Homer, the scholar Randel Helms has shown that other elements were in fact borrowed from the book of Ezekiel in the OT, thus merging both story models into a single one.

examples at
The Book of Acts as Historical Fiction

John 14:26

- "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Again, your answer is "because magic"?

So, no need to copy Mark.

And yet, 90% of Mark is copied into Matthew and ~50% into Luke.
So need or not they copied from Mark.

But your theory doesn't work, Mark is a huge literary work composed as religious mythology. Rich in literary devices, allegory, and all sorts of mythic devices. Not something people wrote on "parchment" at campfires?

"The book is quite obviously a literary construction and is manifestly not a transcription of oral anecdotes. The literary structure of Mark, both in its chiastic forms and its use of the Hebrew Bible as a allusory template or "hypertext" preclude the possibility of transcribed oral tradition. Mark is a carefully constructed literary work. It should also be mentioned that Mark is a Greek composition which shows no signs of translation from Aramaic, the language of Peter and the language he would have dictated his memoirs in."

 

[joelr]

Nuts. Show me your best ONE (1 - just one, your best ONE) geographical error that you're talking about. Cite the scripture #(s) and your argument.

The problem is that Matthew REPEATS most of the mistakes, showing he copied Mark. But corrects a few.

"Mark makes a number of errors regarding Palestininan geography and Jewish laws and customs which show that his information could not have been collected from a Palestinian Jew. Mark's passion, in particular, is so riddled with factual. historical and legal inaccuracies that it cannot be historical and cannot have come from an eyewitness.

Errors in Mark

Mark probably has the greatest number of factual inaccuracies. He makes mistakes of geography, custom and law. The trial before the Sanhedrin is Mark's invention and is a catalogue of errors unto itself but let's start with geography.

Geographical Errors

The Gerasene Demoniac:

In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.

If you look at the map below you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.

Matthew recognized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.

Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:

In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."

There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Looking at the next map below we can see Tyre and Sidon on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.

There also wasn't any road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.


Jumping past other geography errors to legal:



Legal and cultural errors in Mark

Mark doesn't know Jewish divorce law.

In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus forbids divorce: 11 He answered, 'Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Verse 12 implies that Mark believed women had a right of divorce in Jewish law. They did not.

Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws.

Mark says this in 7:3-4: 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

These laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews."

The trial before the Sanhedrin

Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin contains a number of procedural and legal errors. Each of the following details would have been in direct contradiction to Jewish law.

• Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night.
• Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest. The Sanhedrin was permitted to hold trials only in the Gazith Hall at the Temple.
• Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath.
• Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial.
• Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah:
  
  Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One? 62 'I am, said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. 63 The high priest tore his clothes. 'Why do we need any more witnesses? he asked. 64 'You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think? They all condemned him as worthy of death (Mk 14:61-64)
  
  Claiming to be the Messiah was in no way blasphemous nor any violation of Jewish law. The Jewish Messiah was (and is) not God. There is no way that a person claiming to be the Messiah could have been convicted of blasphemy.
• 
  
• Shredding the Gospels: Contradictions, Errors, Mistakes, Fictions by Diogenes the Cynic

 

[SkepticThinker]

You should put your sophomoric, anti-Christianity nonsense on hold for a year or two and go back and study the Bible / New Testament until you come to a better understanding on why you're constantly on the wrong side of the issues.

Sorry what? How'd you come up with that? My questions are about the assertions people are making on a discussion board. Sorry but "go look somewhere else for an answer to my assertions" isn't an answer.

Is the problem here just that you haven't spent any time speaking with someone who has challenged your bald assertions before? Like, you've just always been surrounded by people who believe as you do? Because otherwise your categorization of a person asking questions about your beliefs as "sophomoric" and "anti-Christian" just doesn't make sense. Unless of course you think "anti-Christian" just means somebody who doesn't automatically buy into all the assertions that the Bible/Christians make.

You're the one admittedly making posts just to "throw me into a tizzy," so I'd have to point out the sophomoric nature of your behaviour. You wouldn't want to come off as a hypocrite, would you?

 

[Spartan]

The problem is that Matthew REPEATS most of the mistakes, showing he copied Mark. But corrects a few...

I asked for ONE - your best 1 and you spam the post. So I'll take this one:

Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:

In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."

There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Looking at the next map below we can see Tyre and Sidon on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.

There also wasn't any road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.

Response:

"Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

This one is a little more complex, but no more problematic. It has been interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also."

Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank has passed on to me this quote from Douglas Edwards, who, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century," has noted:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos. [GLA:59-60]) " Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education

Your Mark 5:1 follies are refuted in that link also.

And by the way, Mark 7:31 in the KJV reads, "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the the coasts of the Decapolis."

Nice try but no cigar!

 

[Spartan]

That's funny, call my post fiction but then instead of proving it you make up a story about a campfire and start it with "likely"???

Acts has been proven to be historical fiction. Richard Pervo's work has been peer reviewed and accepted as fact in the historicity field.
Even Christian scholars usually admit this fact. It's one big re-write.

"In fact, Acts has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a work of apologetic historical fiction, and the scholarship of Richard Pervo conclusively demonstrates this to be the case. Regarding any historical sources that Luke may have used for Acts, the only one that has been confirmed with any probability was that of Josephus (a person who never wrote about Jesus Christ nor Christianity, yet was likely used by Luke for background material), and although there may have been more historical sources than Josephus, we simply don’t have any evidence preserved from those other possible historians to make a case one way or the other. All of the other sources that we can discern within Acts are literary sources, not historical ones. Included in these literary sources is what may possibly have been a (now-lost) hagiographical fabrication, and basically a rewrite of the Elijah-Elisha narrative in some of the Old Testament (OT) texts of Kings, although placing Paul and Jesus in the main roles instead, which obviously would have been a literary source of historical fiction (not any kind of historical account).

You spread a lot of horse manure these days. That was a real steamy load of it.

The Historicity of the book of Acts (1/5)

 

[joelr]

I asked for ONE - your best 1 and you spam the post. So I'll take this one:



Response:

"Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

This one is a little more complex, but no more problematic. It has been interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also."

Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank has passed on to me this quote from Douglas Edwards, who, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century," has noted:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos. [GLA:59-60]) " Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education

Your Mark 5:1 follies are refuted in that link also.

And by the way, Mark 7:31 in the KJV reads, "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the the coasts of the Decapolis."

Nice try but no cigar!

First the debunking is a complete assumption, it does not say they had an itinerary? That's speculation by the apologist in the article you posted from? Mark gave simple directions and this apologetics writer thinks that is the wrong "interpretation". I didn't see the part where you show what evidence he used to make this assertion?

The article I linked to had several geographical mistakes then goes on to other types of laws and customs mistakes.
Mark was writing religious mythical fiction, weather he got the directions and laws correct or not makes little difference but they are all listed in the link.

 

[joelr]

You spread a lot of horse manure these days. That was a real steamy load of it.

The Historicity of the book of Acts (1/5)

Once again when you have nothing to say you just throw around some ad-hom and post an amateur apologetics article.


Richard Purvoe is an American biblical scholar, former Episcopalian priest, and Fellow of the Westar Institute.
His work demonstrating Acts as fiction and taken from older sources is accepted in the historicity field as accurate and has closed the book on Acts.
Scholarship now considers acts to be fiction. So what you're calling "manure" is the entire biblical history field.
I'm not surprised because you're not interested in learning anything that contradicts your beliefs but just to show you you've got no clue.

The apologetics simply marvels at the historical matches but doesn't even try to explain why Acts is just stealing from traditional narratives?
So the writer knew about history and wrote it into his fiction?? That doesn't mean it's real? There are correct historical facts about NY city in all Spider Man Marvel comics. Still isn't real.

"It has been claimed that the author of Acts used the writings of Josephus (specifically "Antiquities of the Jews") as a historical source.[11][12] The majority of scholars reject both this claim and the claim that Josephus borrowed from Acts,[13][14][15] arguing instead that Luke and Josephus drew on common traditions and historical sources.COMMON TRADITIONS AND HISTORICAL SOURCES"

"Several scholars have criticised the author's use of his source materials. For example, Richard Heard has written that, "in his narrative in the early part of Acts he seems to be stringing together, as best he may, a number of different stories and narratives, some of which appear, by the time they reached him, to have been seriously distorted in the telling"



"Luke/Acts is creating fiction, not relaying history. He/she was creating a foundational document for a specific set of believers, just like GoMark did, just like GoMatthew did, just like GoJohn did, just like GoThomas did and just like many other members of many other religious organizations have done, and continue to do trying to portray the significance of their own specific sect of their religion. Today we call it mythology."


Carrier does a good job going over much of the evidence in scholarship that demonstrates Acts as historical fiction. Maybe you can demonstrate all their information is incorrect.

 

[Spartan]

Once again when you have nothing to say you just throw around some ad-hom and post an amateur apologetics article.
Richard Purvoe is an American biblical scholar, former Episcopalian priest, and Fellow of the Westar Institute.
His work demonstrating Acts as fiction and taken from older sources is accepted in the historicity field as accurate and has closed the book on Acts.
Scholarship now considers acts to be fiction.

I Googled Richard Purvoe. Nothing. There is a Richard Pervo. You should probably know how to spell the names of your revisionist heroes. And for every liberal commentator you dredge up I can find more that confirm the historicity of the Book of Acts. Scholar Norman Geisler concluded, in his "History of Christian Apologetics," that "The Historicity of the Book of Acts is confirmed by OVERWHELMING evidence." In his review of Acts Geisler provides 43 examples of confirmed historical facts. Others confirm many others.

If all you're going to do is read left-wing liberal tripe then that's the folly you choose.

 

[Spartan]

First the debunking is a complete assumption, it does not say they had an itinerary? That's speculation by the apologist in the article you posted from? Mark gave simple directions and this apologetics writer thinks that is the wrong "interpretation". I didn't see the part where you show what evidence he used to make this assertion?

The article I linked to had several geographical mistakes then goes on to other types of laws and customs mistakes.
Mark was writing religious mythical fiction, weather he got the directions and laws correct or not makes little difference but they are all listed in the link.

There's plenty of sites that debunk your contentions about Mark. I just gave you one.

 

[Muffled]

Nobody would live near the Dead Sea.. Its a terrible place and has been so for 10,000 years.

The Dead Sea is a salt lake bordered by Jordan to the east and Israel and the West Bank to the west. It lies in the Jordan Rift Valley, and its main tributary is the Jordan River.

Its surface and shores are 430.5 metres below sea level, Earth's lowest elevation on land.

It is 304 m deep, the deepest hypersaline lake in the world. With a salinity of 342 g/kg, or 34.2%, it is one of the world's saltiest bodies of water – 9.6 times as salty as the ocean – and has a density of 1.24 kg/litre...

Dead Sea - Wikipedia

Actually it appears the cities became wealthy from salt mining.Salt Lake City, Utah, USA is near a salt lake.

 

[sooda]

Actually it appears the cities became wealthy from salt mining.Salt Lake City, Utah, USA is near a salt lake.

The Saudi tribes also sold salt . and they too were a tiny population.

 

[sooda]

I asked for ONE - your best 1 and you spam the post. So I'll take this one:



Response:

"Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

This one is a little more complex, but no more problematic. It has been interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also."

Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank has passed on to me this quote from Douglas Edwards, who, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century," has noted:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos. [GLA:59-60]) " Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education

Your Mark 5:1 follies are refuted in that link also.

And by the way, Mark 7:31 in the KJV reads, "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the the coasts of the Decapolis."

Nice try but no cigar!

Decapolis was Greek name for a league of approximately ten (deka) Hellenistic or Hellenized cities with their territories, in Roman times (with some Jews living there). All of them, except Scythopolis, were on the Transjordan side of the River.

 

[joelr]

I Googled Richard Purvoe. Nothing. There is a Richard Pervo. You should probably know how to spell the names of your revisionist heroes. And for every liberal commentator you dredge up I can find more that confirm the historicity of the Book of Acts. Scholar Norman Geisler concluded, in his "History of Christian Apologetics," that "The Historicity of the Book of Acts is confirmed by OVERWHELMING evidence." In his review of Acts Geisler provides 43 examples of confirmed historical facts. Others confirm many others.

If all you're going to do is read left-wing liberal tripe then that's the folly you choose.

No you can't, all you can find are apologist writers, the historicity field is unanimous that acts is fiction.
Carrier mentions Pervo in the first minute of the video.
You can call the entire field of history "left-wing liberal's" until you are blue in the face if that makes you feel better but there are no historians outside of fundamentalists who still think Acts is actual history.

Carrier lays out the consensus among scholarship of where acts was taken from, none of those facts are shown to be wrong in debates. Go ahead, which point is wrong? Calling someone a liberal, or any other name doesn't show them to be wrong.
Although "liberal" is especially funny because every single scientist or anyone in any field who found out a new truth was called a liberal. All you're saying is he's not stuck in the bronze age believing in gods and monster invasions from space.

Norman Geisler is the worst reference you could possible use, a "strong defender of the full inerrancy of the Bible" he already admits he's a fundamentalist who thinks nothing can possibly be wrong in the Bible?
The vast majority of even Christian scholarship admits Acts is likely not history?

What Geisler does is find stuff in Acts that we know is historical. Because the writer of Acts simply included historical aspects in the story? Do you even understand how much of a stretch that is? If someone find a Spider Man comic 2000 years from now they will say "look, these details about NY city are actually accurate!!!
Oh my god. Spider Man was REAL!!!!!!

Even conservative christian scholarship admits Acts is sketchty?
www.cambridge.org - New Testament Studies:
Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts

This paper explores the boundaries between fact and fiction in ancient literature. The historians effectively created the concept of ‘fiction’ in Greek literature by defining what could be incontrovertibly established as ‘fact’ by accepted rationalistic criteria. Anything beyond these limits (tales involving distant places, or the distant past, or divine intervention) was widely perceived as belonging to the realm of ‘fiction’. To readers from this background, Acts would fall uncomfortably on the boundary: much of the narrative would sound like fiction, but there is a disturbing undercurrent which suggests that it might after all be intended as fact.
Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts* | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core




The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story


"This is the most important book I have read in five years. Bravo Pervo! Summarizing the discoveries made during the writing of his magisterial commentary on Acts, this little book makes it wonderfully clear that there is little if anything of historical value in the book of Acts, apart from what it can tell us about the community that wrote it. In one fell swoop, the only basis of support for the traditional model of Christian origins has been eliminated. It is now possible to entertain seriously other models of Christian origins, including the theory that Christianity did not begin at any particular place in space or moment in time, but rather began like the ancient religions of Egypt, India, Greece, and Rome. The fact that as soon as the curtain goes up on the stage of Christian history there is evidence of division and "heresies" such as Docetism--inexplicable on the basis of traditional notions of an historical "Jesus of Nazareth"--now becomes understandable if "Christianity" developed (and continues to develop) as the intertwining of threads of religious tradition into braids of tradition that change as time goes on."

 

[joelr]

There's plenty of sites that debunk your contentions about Mark. I just gave you one.

I told you, his "debunking" of the first mistake was to make a ad-hoc assumption about an "itinerary" which has to add something to debunk it which is not actually debunking anything.

He never debunks any of the legal and cultural mistakes.

But he does on a separate page suggest it's possible that Mark was copied from older mythology:

"And so we conclude: If Mark did indeed engage in imitation:

• It was to a far, far lesser extent than MacDonald supposes;
• It was done using real historical events;
• It was done borrowing from an earlier tradition, which we see in Matthew's Gospel."

His point being that it was not Homer. It's already been pointed out by many sources in scholarship that the "earlier tradition" was Jesus was an updated Moses among other older sources.
Interesting that your source even admits that it's a possibility.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't convey anything meaningful to me

Can you demonstrate that your god exists, or is it just based on your faith belief?


I believe I asked what facts you were referring to. I guess I have to ask again, because I don't see you listing of them here.


I'm not sure how this answers my question. What evidence do you have to indicate that god(s) exist?

I used to be a Christian. Don't bother telling me I didn't look, as you know nothing about me.

It seems to me like God is being the lazy one here. That's assuming "he" exists of course, which I don't do.


What answers? I have been asking questions, and have received no answers that even address those questions. All I'm asking for is a demonstration that your claims are accurate. You can't seem to provide that.

I don't have a belief here. I lack belief. And I have in fact, asked you repeatedly to back up your repeated assertions about your beliefs.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


That is because you have no education in things appertaining to the bible itself or the people whose lives have been changed.
As I said this is not about you or what you believe. Personal faith is about what and why I believe. It is like the joke about
God and the scientist. God tells the scientist to get his own soil. That should tell you it isn't my beliefs or what I know which
will do anything for you. But like myself you have take your own spiritual journey and make your own decisions. Because faith is
a personal journey and you cannot expect someone else to do it for you. If you want truth you will search, you will read and you
will discover or you will never do anything because you don't choose to.

No you didn't ask for facts. You have to get your own facts. Like I did mine.

I am not here to give you evidence nor to get it for you.
If you want to know if God exists then do as the bible tells you to find out.

There is no such thing as 'use to be a Christian' and as for looking, you would know if you had been a Christian
we can know things about others because of God and the Holy Spirit. Acts where ananias hid money from the selling of property.
You see being a christian is not a title it is a position of knowledge in Spirit and Truth.
Something your posts show you know absolutely zero about.


You may ask questions but in truth you still have your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed. You do not listen
and hence you will never have if you cannot seek and so find. I have not claimed anything that is not personal belief.
As I have no need to prove or wish to prove my faith to anyone because you have to get your own. If you had listened you
would not still be parroting the same things over and over again because you don't listen.

I don't have assertions because anyone can find what I have. YOUR JUST TO LAZY to look and want everyone to do it for you.
You do not deserve anyone to share or give your knowledge because you are too lazy to see what is under your nose.

 

[Spartan]

I told you, his "debunking" of the first mistake was to make a ad-hoc assumption about an "itinerary" which has to add something to debunk it which is not actually debunking anything.

He never debunks any of the legal and cultural mistakes.

But he does on a separate page suggest it's possible that Mark was copied from older mythology:

"And so we conclude: If Mark did indeed engage in imitation:

• It was to a far, far lesser extent than MacDonald supposes;
• It was done using real historical events;
• It was done borrowing from an earlier tradition, which we see in Matthew's Gospel."

His point being that it was not Homer. It's already been pointed out by many sources in scholarship that the "earlier tradition" was Jesus was an updated Moses among other older sources.
Interesting that your source even admits that it's a possibility.

I'll stick with the Biblical Mark and the Biblical Jesus.

 

[Spartan]

No you can't, all you can find are apologist writers, the historicity field is unanimous that acts is fiction.
Carrier mentions Pervo in the first minute of the video.
You can call the entire field of history "left-wing liberal's" until you are blue in the face if that makes you feel better but there are no historians outside of fundamentalists who still think Acts is actual history.

Carrier lays out the consensus among scholarship of where acts was taken from, none of those facts are shown to be wrong in debates. Go ahead, which point is wrong? Calling someone a liberal, or any other name doesn't show them to be wrong.
Although "liberal" is especially funny because every single scientist or anyone in any field who found out a new truth was called a liberal. All you're saying is he's not stuck in the bronze age believing in gods and monster invasions from space.

Norman Geisler is the worst reference you could possible use, a "strong defender of the full inerrancy of the Bible" he already admits he's a fundamentalist who thinks nothing can possibly be wrong in the Bible?
The vast majority of even Christian scholarship admits Acts is likely not history?

What Geisler does is find stuff in Acts that we know is historical. Because the writer of Acts simply included historical aspects in the story? Do you even understand how much of a stretch that is? If someone find a Spider Man comic 2000 years from now they will say "look, these details about NY city are actually accurate!!!
Oh my god. Spider Man was REAL!!!!!!

Even conservative christian scholarship admits Acts is sketchty?
www.cambridge.org - New Testament Studies:
Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts

This paper explores the boundaries between fact and fiction in ancient literature. The historians effectively created the concept of ‘fiction’ in Greek literature by defining what could be incontrovertibly established as ‘fact’ by accepted rationalistic criteria. Anything beyond these limits (tales involving distant places, or the distant past, or divine intervention) was widely perceived as belonging to the realm of ‘fiction’. To readers from this background, Acts would fall uncomfortably on the boundary: much of the narrative would sound like fiction, but there is a disturbing undercurrent which suggests that it might after all be intended as fact.
Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts* | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core




The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story


"This is the most important book I have read in five years. Bravo Pervo! Summarizing the discoveries made during the writing of his magisterial commentary on Acts, this little book makes it wonderfully clear that there is little if anything of historical value in the book of Acts, apart from what it can tell us about the community that wrote it. In one fell swoop, the only basis of support for the traditional model of Christian origins has been eliminated. It is now possible to entertain seriously other models of Christian origins, including the theory that Christianity did not begin at any particular place in space or moment in time, but rather began like the ancient religions of Egypt, India, Greece, and Rome. The fact that as soon as the curtain goes up on the stage of Christian history there is evidence of division and "heresies" such as Docetism--inexplicable on the basis of traditional notions of an historical "Jesus of Nazareth"--now becomes understandable if "Christianity" developed (and continues to develop) as the intertwining of threads of religious tradition into braids of tradition that change as time goes on."

You're not the least bit believable. Pervo's revisionist theology sucks, as does Carrier and all those other liberal flakes you think are scholarly. You can trot those spiritual and Biblical lepers out all day and they won't make the smallest dent in the Gospel and New Testament truths about Jesus Christ.

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son." - 1 John 2:22

That makes it real clear who Pervo and Carrier and company are.