Egyptian Account of Exodus.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And, aside from your precious tome (The Bible), what evidence do you have of ANY OF IT? Please?

Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

Not anecdotal, not fan-fiction, but actual, VERIFIED evidence?

What happened to you? Did a priest beat you? Its obvious from your previous involvement on my threads that you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the Bible.

a reply to: Tangerine

Do you not get tired of typing contemporaneous documentation in every second post?

that's pretty much your only argument so why bother... everyone knows you love those two words because you think it disproves everything, but it doesn't...

seriously... change the record

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

I know exactly what "The Bible" is.
Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

I fear for the future when so many people can not reason critically and are unable to comprehend that in order to produce contemporaneous documentation proving that someone lived, the person creating the documentation had to have lived at the same time and had to have witnessed the person in question living.

LMAO!

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

Do you not get tired of typing contemporaneous documentation in every second post?

that's pretty much your only argument so why bother... everyone knows you love those two words because you think it disproves everything, but it doesn't...

seriously... change the record

It's the only argument needed because it is the only thing that constitutes historical evidence. That you don't have any contemporaneous documentation proving your claim is your burden.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

I know exactly what "The Bible" is.
Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

Fan fiction! Well said!

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 260 or 265 – 339 or 340), Emperor Constantine's bishop, was one of the earliest active advocates of the process:

"How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived."[2]

Eusebius is considered the most likely perpetrator of the claimed mention of Jesus in Josephus.

Eusebius of Caesarea Wiki
(Not source of above quote - see Lying for Jesus)

Martin Luther once said,

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."[4]

Lying for Jesus

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65)

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Chuck Missler. LMAO. Was PeeWee Herman not available to serve as a Biblical scholar?

i love chuck missler!

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

Do you not get tired of typing contemporaneous documentation in every second post?

that's pretty much your only argument so why bother... everyone knows you love those two words because you think it disproves everything, but it doesn't...

seriously... change the record

It's the only argument needed because it is the only thing that constitutes historical evidence. That you don't have any contemporaneous documentation proving your claim is your burden.

No... it doesn't...

Look into any historian and you will see contemporaneous documentation is not always needed to prove someone's existence... As I've stated many times before, We know Paul existed for a fact.... Paul met james "the brother of the lord" personally... and he met peter personally...

For a trained historian that is enough to prove his existence... that doesn't prove he was the son of God, nor does it prove his miracles... but it shows us he was a real person...

and you can ramble on with that same old argument as much as you want... you only show its your only argument, and its weak

anyone here watch the ring of power video series?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Wiki is extremely bias when it comes to most apologetic arguments. Probably shouldn't be the only source you go to. However, even from your quoted wiki section you can read that "Most scholars admit that at least SOME parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic." Research this further and you find the the parts most scholars considered to be interpolations have nothing to do with Jesus and the crucifixion. The majority consider the part about Jesus and his death to be authentic. Nice try though.

Here is the paragraph with the sections that scholars are skeptical about in brackets and underlined:

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

Now this is the Greek version translated into English. There is no known copy of this that exist that differs from what we have had.

Now lets look at the Arabic version:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."



Josephus also makes other references to people in the Bible that are not questioned such as John. If he knew of John, it is very likely he was aware of Jesus.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

Do you not get tired of typing contemporaneous documentation in every second post?

that's pretty much your only argument so why bother... everyone knows you love those two words because you think it disproves everything, but it doesn't...

seriously... change the record

It's the only argument needed because it is the only thing that constitutes historical evidence. That you don't have any contemporaneous documentation proving your claim is your burden.

No... it doesn't...

Look into any historian and you will see contemporaneous documentation is not always needed to prove someone's existence... As I've stated many times before, We know Paul existed for a fact.... Paul met james "the brother of the lord" personally... and he met peter personally...

For a trained historian that is enough to prove his existence... that doesn't prove he was the son of God, nor does it prove his miracles... but it shows us he was a real person...

and you can ramble on with that same old argument as much as you want... you only show its your only argument, and its weak

You are welcome to your wishful thinking.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I know people who claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials. Is that proof that extraterrestrials exist? I fear that you might say yes.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

I know exactly what "The Bible" is.
Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

you could have fooled me...

it's still the number 1 best selling book worldwide since it came off the Gutenberg Press circa 1450, it's given away freely in most instances.

www.newyorker.com...

in... the non-fiction category

a reply to: Tangerine

Its not wishful thinking... its rational logic...

We have no contemporaneous documentation from john the Baptist... but its a well known fact that he existed...

we have no contemporaneous documentation for Alexander the great, but the same goes for him...

along with many other people who are considered "historical figures" by most historians in the field

what is wishful thinking (although rather sad) is the fact that you want to believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus when in fact there is an abundance... and the fact remains... people do not die for someone who never existed... period

contemporaneous documentation is not the only qualification for proof of someone's existence... although you believe it is, and of course as I've said, the only reason you hold on to this idea is because its your only argument... without which you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in these discussions... and thus would not be able to take part without looking ignorant...

so you hold on to your two word argument... but its old... and its extremely weak

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I know exactly what "The Bible" is. Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

Argument from omniscience.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

Argument from Personal incredulity

a reply to: Tangerine

I fear for the future when so many people can not reason critically and are unable to comprehend that in order to produce contemporaneous documentation proving that someone lived, the person creating the documentation had to have lived at the same time and had to have witnessed the person in question living.

Yea but everytime you try and actually produce a piece of counter evidence it gets smashed into the ground by proper research. Why don't you quit with the overly broad statements and either swallow your pride and admit you were ignorant of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person or produce some viable counter evidence.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I know people who claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials. Is that proof that extraterrestrials exist? I fear that you might say yes.

no...

because ET has not given anything to mankind,

not even a spiritual message that has 2000 years of relevance and civilization building laws surrounding it.

the evidence for existence is overwhelming, so I'd rather just watch the majority throw this one out of court.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I know people who claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials. Is that proof that extraterrestrials exist? I fear that you might say yes.

no...

because ET has not given anything to mankind,

not even a spiritual message that has 2000 years of relevance and civilization building law surrounding it.

What ET? What Jesus?