Ehrman Debunked.

When disputing the Historicity of the Bible with people on ATS I have been confronted with videos from ole Bart here many times. I decided to show people that he is basically spouting speculative opinion.

I figured I would start with the video below:



The first claims that Ehrman makes is that the Gospels do not give an accurate description of Jesus, and then he says but lets take a simpler question; lets just ask when did Jesus die?

Then he claims Mark and John disagree on the day Jesus died. Lets look and see if that is the case.

Clue #1: The High Priesthood of Caiaphas
The gospels indicate that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the first century high priest named Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3-4, John 11:49-53).

We know from outside sources that Caiaphas was high priest from 18 to 36 AD.

Clue #2: The Governorship of Pontius Pilate
All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:24-26, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:24, John 19:15-16).

Pilate governed between 26 to 36 AD so now we have at least a ten year time frame.

Clue #3: After "the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar"
The Gospel of Luke tells us when the ministry of John the Baptist began: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar . . . the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness [Luke 3:1-2]. This picks out a specific year: A.D. 29. Since all four gospels depict the ministry of Christ beginning after that of John the Baptist had begun (Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 1), this means that we can shave a few more years off our range. The death of Christ had to be in a range of seven years: between A.D. 29 and 36.

Now before I continue any further I must make somethings clear, and they are things Ehrman missed, which is why he believes the Gospels have contradictions within them.

1) Jesus ate passover with his disciples the on the 13th of Nisan(day before actual passover 14th). Biblical references:

Luke 22:15 paired with John 13:1-2,
Luke 22
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
John 13:1-2
13 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

Now the reference to Judas is made in Mark 14 as well however Mark calls this meal a passover, and from the two together you can see it is the same meal, however it is before the actual passover.

More evidence is shown in John 18:28. They lead Jesus to the judgement hall(after Garden of Gethsemane, meaning passover in Mark 14 has already happened), but won't enter because they want to be able to eat passover.

2) Jesus was crucified on the 14th of Nisan during the later half of the day. Biblical references:

Exodus 12
5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Jesus is the lamb without blemish(a righteous man) crucified on the fourteenth day of Nisan.

John 18:28 above also shows that it was the 14th of Nisan.

John18
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

Obviously Jesus was crucified on the 14th.

Mark 15
25 And it was the third hour(9:00A.M.), and they crucified him. 26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, The King Of The Jews. 27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. 28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. 29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross. 31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. 33 And when the sixth hour(12:00P.M.) was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour(3:00P.M.) 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

John 19
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

In John 19:14 the phrase “and about the sixth hour” does not refer to the time of day at all, but rather to the amount of time that had passed from the initial arrest of Jesus till the time the nation as a whole pronounced their fatal verdict of “Crucify him”.

This makes a lot of sense if you view the events. Jesus is arrested sometime early in the morning, but still very dark(John 18:3) in the garden. It was probably about 3:00 A.M and John tells us about six hours after the initial arrest(which would be the 9:00A.M, or the third hour mentioned in the other three gospels). No contradiction.

With these things cleared up lets continue.

Clue #4: Crucified on a Friday All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday (Matt. 27:62, Mark 15:42; Luke23:54; John 19:42), just before a Sabbath, which was just before the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1). We know that it was a Friday because it is referred to as "the day of preparation"--that is, the day on which Jews made the preparations they needed for the Sabbath, since they could not do any work on that day.

Clue #5: A Friday at Passover The gospels also agree that Jesus was crucified in conjunction with the annual feast of Passover (Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1, Luke 22:1, John 18:39). Here we encounter a momentary complication, because Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe the Last Supper on Holy Thursday as a Passover meal (Matthew 26:19, Mark 14:14, Luke 22:15). That would suggest that Good Friday was the day after Passover. However, when describing the morning of Good Friday, John indicates that the Jewish authorities had not yet eaten the Passover meal: Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the Praetorium [i.e., Pilate's palace]. It was early. They themselves did not enter the Praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. So Pilate went out to them [John 18:28-29a].

I am running out of room so before commenting please wait on the rest of the post to be completed.

That lets us narrow down the range of possible dates to just a few. Here is a complete list of the days between A.D. 29 and 36 on whose evenings Passover began: Monday, April 18, A.D. 29 Friday, April 7, A.D. 30 Tuesday, March 27, A.D. 31 Monday, April 14, A.D. 32 Friday, April 3, A.D. 33 Wednesday, March 24, A.D. 34 Tuesday, April 12, A.D. 35 Saturday, March 31, A.D. 36 As you can see, we have just two candidates left: Jesus was either crucified on April 7 of A.D. 30 or April 3 of A.D. 33.

So we have narrowed down the day Jesus died with no contradictions to April 7, 30 A.D. or April 3, 33 A.D.

Clue #6: John's Three Passovers The Gospel of John records three different Passovers during the ministry of Jesus: Passover #1: This is recorded in John 2:13, near the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Passover #2: This is recorded in John 6:4, in the middle of Jesus' ministry. Passover #3: This is recorded in John 11:55 (and frequently mentioned afterwards), at the end of Jesus' ministry. That means that the ministry of Jesus had to span something over two years. A fuller treatment would reveal that it spanned about three and a half years, but even if we assume it began immediately before Passover #1, the addition of two more Passovers shows that it lasted more than two years at a bare minimum. That means the A.D. 30 date is out. There is not enough time between the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar--A.D. 29--and the next year's Passover to accommodate a ministry of at least two years. The numbers don't add up. As a result, the traditional date of Jesus' death--Friday, April 3, A.D. 33--must be regarded as the correct one.

So now we have narrowed it down to the day Jesus died with no contradictions, but we aren't done.

Clue #7: "The Ninth Hour" Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record that Jesus died about "the ninth hour" (Matthew 27:45-50, Mark 15:34-37, Luke 23:44-46). "The ninth hour" is what we, today, would refer to as 3:00 p.m. This allows us to narrow down the time of Jesus' death to a very specific point in history: around 3:00 p.m on Friday, April 3, A.D. 33.

Matthew 27
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15
33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23


44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost

Now these three verse not only tell us the hour, but give us a piece of evidence to look for on the day Jesus died.

Not only did Jesus die on passover(How we got to April 3 and April 7), but there was an eclipse on this passover. Not only was there an eclipse, but it lasted 2 hrs and 50 minutes meaning from sixth to ninth hour is accurate. This eclipse was April 3, 33 A.D.

NASA's Findings

There is just one claim debunked I will continue with the second one in another thread.

Isn't believing in the stories of the bible just speculative opinion too? I mean, there's no actual proof any of those miracles happened other than what it says in the bible, and words on a page do not count as proof.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dear3NLIGHT3N3D1,

Isn't believing in the stories of the bible just speculative opinion too? I mean, there's no actual proof any of those miracles happened other than what it says in the bible, and words on a page do not count as proof.

A lot depends on the standard of proof required. For example, using your standard of proof, there is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's just words on a page. If you want to consider the alien theories, there's no proof that Obama was even born.

Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg address? Just words on a page, not proof. Did Caesar exist? Just words on a page, or words on a pillar.

Let's say I went back in time, set up a tripod and movie camera at Golgotha and filmed the Crucifixion. Say further, that I brought it back and posted it on ATS. What would be the response? "How do we know that's Jesus?" "You edited the tape." "It's CGI." "You didn't show Him rising from the tomb." "It's a government plot to control people." "You're biased."

Is that the standard we apply to all other historical figures, of course not. Calling it speculative opinion seems to minimize the evidence of eyewitnesses, and at least half a dozen different sources. Setting up the standard you do, makes it seem as though you want to treat Jesus differently from everyone else in history. I hope you haven't just pre-judged the matter.

With respect,
Charles1952

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Isn't believing in the stories of the bible just speculative opinion too? I mean, there's no actual proof any of those miracles happened other than what it says in the bible, and words on a page do not count as proof.

If you do not wish to take on faith that the miracles occurred that is completely up to you sir. I believe I personally have seen and experienced more than enough evidence to take on faith that God did those things, and that God guided the Bible. I will agree there is no way for me to prove to you that those miracles occurred. I could debate the flood controversy with you, but it always leads to a circular argument. However, I don't believe any of what I posted was speculative opinion; based on the documents the Bible is compiled of Jesus of Nazareth died around 3:00 P.M. April 3, 33A.D. and I found no contradictions within the text.

Nicely done, and never mind the nitwits who either didn't read, or didn't understand, your post.

Ehrman is a textual critic, and a very good one, but I have issues with his methodology, as well as the typical application of modern cultural and writing characteristics to ancient texts. But he, at least, acknowledges the historical existence of a person named Jesus, in that time, whose birth, life and death resulted in the religion that we now know as Christianity.

So far as I can tell, most scientific studies in to the death of Christ also point to 3 April, 33AD. Here's one that bases it on, among other things, the earthquake that was said to have happened.

However, putting the jigsaw together, Williams said the clues were:

All four gospels and Tacitus in Annals (XV,44) agree that the crucifixion occurred when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea from 26-36 AD

All four gospels say the crucifixion occurred on a Friday

All four gospels agree that Jesus died a few hours before the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath (nightfall on a Friday)

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) indicate that Jesus died before nightfall on the 14th day of Nisan; right before the start of the Passover meal

John’s gospel differs from the 'Synoptic Gospels'; apparently indicating that Jesus died before nightfall on the 15th day of Nisan

The researchers said that these clues, combined with the Jewish calendar and astronomy clues, indicate that Friday April 3, 33 AD is the best possible match. (So urce)

I came across this video, and I feel like this gentleman is very honest about the information we have on the New Testament.

reply to post by charles1952


Did Abraham Lincoln's speech have him levitating in the air or shooting fireballs out of his eyes? If not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Since Jesus was so different than anyone else in history by performing miracles and being the most famous person in history because of said miracles, why shouldn't I treat him differently? Christians do it all the time.

When the evidence points toward it being impossible to do the things Jesus did, logic should tell you to question it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing about Abraham Lincoln giving a speech or Obama being born in Hawaii is extra-ordinary, Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead is pretty extra-ordinary, and words written down 2,000 years ago does not count as extraordinary evidence in my book.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dear 3NL1GHT3N3D1,

Excellent, very good point. I don't think it effects the argument much.

We're dealing with several extraordinary events which were recorded by several witnesses, and in some cases by crowds of people. We do know that what they wrote can be determined with nearly complete accuracy, more so than any other ancient document. The question of whether miracles occurred may be reduced to, "Did they write the truth, lies, or were they fooled?"

You ask for extraordinary proof, and I offer to provide it; but first what do you consider extraordinary proof? Will you need a sound or video recording? Will you accept one more person writing about it as the proof you require?

When the evidence points toward it being impossible to do the things Jesus did, logic should tell you to question it.

Indeed, we should always question important things, I agree. But I strongly disagree that logic or evidence says it was impossible to do those things.

What logical argument will you construct to prove he couldn't do it? What piece of evidence will you unearth proving that there were no miracles?

A miracle is nothing more than something outside the natural world "interfering" with the natural world to produce that would not occur in nature by itself. Christians believe that Jesus was more than just a man, that he was also part of something "outside" the natural world. Given that, there's no logical reason to disbelieve in miracles, other, I suppose, than that they make us uncomfortable. Miracles are unusual, but then they would be. I deny that they are impossible.

As an aside, I'm always puzzled by the charge that Christians are narrow-minded. Non-believers have a world which is limited to just what their instruments can measure. Believers see that, and a whole other plane of existence as well. Tell me, just who is narrow-minded?

With respect,
Charles1952

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by charles1952

 

Did Abraham Lincoln's speech have him levitating in the air or shooting fireballs out of his eyes? If not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Since Jesus was so different than anyone else in history by performing miracles and being the most famous person in history because of said miracles, why shouldn't I treat him differently? Christians do it all the time.

When the evidence points toward it being impossible to do the things Jesus did, logic should tell you to question it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing about Abraham Lincoln giving a speech or Obama being born in Hawaii is extra-ordinary, Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead is pretty extra-ordinary, and words written down 2,000 years ago does not count as extraordinary evidence in my book.

Hmm well if words on paper are not evidence, how exactly would get any evidence for it otherwise aside from maybe a video camera, but I don't think your gonna find video evidence for something that occurred before the creation of that technology so.....seems like paper is the only evidence available....

I think what his point was is that the vast majority of skeptics hold the documents of the Bible to different standards than they hold the documents of say Pliny the Younger or Aristotle when they shouldn't. If we had work from Aristotle dating within a century of his life we wouldn't dispute whether or not it was historical or if it had been altered...

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by charles1952

 

Did Abraham Lincoln's speech have him levitating in the air or shooting fireballs out of his eyes? If not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Since Jesus was so different than anyone else in history by performing miracles and being the most famous person in history because of said miracles, why shouldn't I treat him differently? Christians do it all the time.

When the evidence points toward it being impossible to do the things Jesus did, logic should tell you to question it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing about Abraham Lincoln giving a speech or Obama being born in Hawaii is extra-ordinary, Jesus walking on water and raising people from the dead is pretty extra-ordinary, and words written down 2,000 years ago does not count as extraordinary evidence in my book.

Hmm well if words on paper are not evidence, how exactly would get any evidence for it otherwise aside from maybe a video camera, but I don't think your gonna find video evidence for something that occurred before the creation of that technology so.....seems like paper is the only evidence available....

I think what his point was is that the vast majority of skeptics hold the documents of the Bible to different standards than they hold the documents of say Pliny the Younger or Aristotle when they shouldn't. If we had work from Aristotle dating within a century of his life we wouldn't dispute whether or not it was historical or if it had been altered...

reply to post by charles1952


The only evidence that crowds of people saw the miracles being performed by Jesus are in the gospels, only two books of which were written by so-called eyewitnesses. You can not prove the bible is right by using the bible. That's called circular logic.

Did you know that all of the gospels were written anonymously and weren't attributed to their respective authors until the second century? That's 100 years after Jesus died. There is no evidence that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, that notion is based entirely on conjecture on the part of the early church fathers who assigned the names to the books.

There was a man named Appolonius of Tyana who is said to have performed miracles and shared many similarities with Jesus, including living in the same period of time. Did he really perform these miracles attributed to him as well? If your answer is that Satan helped him to perform these miracles, how can you be so sure it wasn't the same case with Jesus? Even Jesus is said to have been tempted by the devil.

My logical argument against Jesus rising from the dead or walking on water is physics. Physics dictates those things to be impossible. If you choose to ignore physics then more power to you, but I choose to recognize them.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I think what his point was is that the vast majority of skeptics hold the documents of the Bible to different standards

And my point is that Christians hold the bible to a different set of standards than they do to other books.

The standards I use for the miracles are physics, which say that the miracles Jesus performed were impossible. Those are my standards, what are yours?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by charles1952

 

The only evidence that crowds of people saw the miracles being performed by Jesus is in the gospels, only two books of which were written by so-called eyewitnesses.

Did you know that all of the gospels were written anonymously and weren't attributed to their respective authors until the second century? That's 100 years after Jesus died. There is no evidence that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, that notion is based entirely on conjecture on the part of the early church fathers who assigned the names to the books.

There was a man named Appolonius of Tyana who is said to have performed miracles and shared many similarities with Jesus, including living in the same period of time. Did he really perform these miracles attributed to him as well? If your answer is that Satan helped him to perform these miracles, how can you be so sure it wasn't the same case with Jesus? Even Jesus is said to have been tempted by the devil.

My logical argument against Jesus rising from the dead or walking on water is physics. Physics dictates those things to be impossible. If you choose to ignore physics then more power to you, but I choose to recognize them.

edit on 21-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

First paragraph is just wrong. Watch the video I posted with Licona he describes the eye witness testimony that is actually in the Bible and is very honest about the information we have.

Apollonius is not representative of the bioi genre. Some find contact points in that the Gospels and the story of Apollonius are in the same genre, ancient biography. But this genre also contains Tacitus' Agricola, a very sober piece of literature, and other "serious" biois. Furthermore, the biography of Apollonius violates a number of the conventions of ancient biography: It is over 4 times longer than any other biography known from ancient history, having some 82,000 words ([Burr.WAG, 169] - and I would add, it is rather tedious reading); it contains geographical, historical, and ethnographical information of the type found in "sophistic novels" of the time (ibid., 172); and finally, it has the traits of both novel and romance. It has rightly been wondered if this work belongs in the bioi genre at all! Apollonius is not the closest semblance to the life of Jesus. In highlighting these many similarities to the events recorded in the Gospels, critics imply that the depiction of miracles being performed by Apollonius, his penchant for spouting wisdom, and the fact that he was put on trial, makes the Life the best comparison to the Gospels. As we have seen, however, there is a far better biographical comparison available: Socrates. (Indeed, the performance of miracles is the ONLY thing that Apollonius and Jesus have in common that Jesus and Socrates do not! Unlike the latter pair, Apollonius was NOT executed!) Moreover, in a comparison between the Gospels and the Life, Votaw [Vota.GCB, 21-2] notes 8 similarities, but 10 differences. Talbert places the Life in the "B" category of ancient biography: an effort to dispel a false image. What is this false image that Philostratus is trying to dispel? Quite simply, Apollonius had been accused of being an evil magician, both by a contemporary named Euphrates [Ph.LAT, x] and by an author named Moeragenes [Talb.WIG, 94-8]; Philostratus, therefore, was aiming to show that Apollonius' powers were "by-products of his philosophical virtue or saintliness." (ibid., 125) He ignored Moeragenes' books of Apollonius' life, saying that "he paid no attention to them, because they displayed an ignorance of many things which concerned the sage." [Ph.LAT, ix] Philostratus also therefore concentrated on Apollonius' teaching (which reflects a high degree of virtue, and much of which may go back to the real Apollonius); on the other hand, there does seem to have been some indication that Apollonius was a miracle-worker - though whether he was an effective one is another issue! However, we then fall upon the third, and most important point: The stories of Apollonius were written some 150 years after the crucifixion of Jesus! Whether through neglect, carelessness, or outright deception, in omitting this fact critics allow the reader to assume that the Gospels are somehow copied from or influenced by the Apollonius stories. If anything, the evidence would point to just the opposite: Philostratus copied what was in the gospels; although it is not necessary to think that he did. (As Mead puts it [Mead.ApT, 35]: "...as a plagarist of the Gospel story Philostratus is a conspicuous failure.") The small similarity in genre between the Gospels and the story of Apollonius is fascinating, but the incredible DIFFERENCES between the material are far more important - and as we have noted, this leads some scholars to take Apollonius' story out of the genre of bioi entirely! The reader should be aware that: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana was written no earlier than AD 217. This is over 100 years after Apollonius lived - twice as long as the time between the life of Jesus and the latest proposed date for the first Gospel writing (75 AD) and four times longer than the earliest proposed time (50 AD). The author, Philostratus, was born around 172 AD. This means that whereas there were still people alive when the Gospels were written who could confirm or deny their historicity, in the case of Apollonius, everyone who knew him was long dead and buried. This makes a substantial difference when comparing the texts.

That is my response to your Apollonius statement.

And your so called logical argument is an argument from incredulity and is a logical fallacy meaning that argument is not logical at all, but quite the opposite. You cannot imagine a world in which God existed in human form and therefore conclude that the laws of physics should apply to Jesus...however it is entirely possible that Jesus was God in Human form, and if this was the case the laws of physics would have no bearing on him.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I think what his point was is that the vast majority of skeptics hold the documents of the Bible to different standards

And my point is that Christians hold the bible to a different set of standards than they do to other books.

The standards I use for the miracles are physics, which say that the miracles Jesus performed were impossible. Those are my standards, what are yours?

edit on 22-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

My standards are logic. If the situation described fits logically with what I know to be true of the world then it is perfectly coherent. Example, if you trace time back as close to the beginning as we can get the laws of physics and time itself has a creation. What started the creation process from nothing? Logically the answer to this question is a supernatural intelligent being if you want the evidence that supports this look into the semiotic systems within human genetics .

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Isn't it strange though that even NASA says there was a 2 hour eclipse on that very day when Jesus died when the bible says it was datk for 2 hours?

The passover during Pilate's rule.

Nice Job, Servantofthelamb, I was going to say that this is all speculation until you had the date of the eclipse to back it up!

I wonder when Jesus was born? Probably around the spring time too given the bible's description of no snow or cold weather.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Mark and Luke were not eye-witnesses, so my first paragraph is not wrong.

If someone could have fabricated a fictional biography of a man that was at least 4 times as long as Jesus' biography, what makes you think Jesus' couldn't have been fabricated as well? Even Appolonius' biography is grounded in history as your quote says.

By the way, it would help that you post a link to where you got your quote from, it's a requirement of the T&C of this site. Just a friendly reminder.

Argument from incredulity works both ways my friend. You cannot imagine how the miracles cannot be true, so therefore it must be true.

reply to post by arpgme


Not strange at all. Rome (who legalized Christianity and put the NT together) were avid astronomers and were also pagan. They kept up with the skies movements just like many other cultures in those times. I don't find it too far out of the question to think they could have set up the crucifixion scenario around the time of the eclipse after the fact.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Logic dictates that there was no beginning and there will be no end. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change forms. The universe is just one enormous ball of energy, so the universe could have never been created nor can it ever be destroyed.

The universe has always existed in one form or another and will continue to always exist in one form or another for eternity. Even your consciousness is energy, meaning you too are infinite and eternal.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by arpgme

 

Not strange at all. Rome (who legalized Christianity and put the NT together) were avid astronomers and were also pagan. They kept up with the skies movements just like many other cultures in those times. I don't find it too far out of the question to think they could have set up the crucifixion scenario around the time of the eclipse after the fact.

Thats a little out of the ball park man come on really....I dunno if there is even a point in debating with you if you are this close minded....