:stare:
Printable View
:stare:
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
I think we are progressing. TR's content is more his own, and all though he is seriously entrenched, our Onagers are softening that wall of his.
I pushed a little on the philosophical area but think TR is not ready to consider such.
The more we object, the more he needs to refine his argument -> progress. :sneaky:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
This is what people do when they lose a discussion and realize they have no logical arguments.
Red Herring Fallacy
A#red herring fallacy#is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic. This is a defense technique often employed when the person realizes you have a logical and sound argument forming. This can even develop as an unconscious technique employed by one who wishes to protect their beliefs from any scrutiny, truly a strong self delusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
maybe that is the problem if so i am sorry. On my op under 17 it says Spoiler Alert, click show to read: than a white button to the right that says show, click on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
i am not saying i dont agree with you, but there is no proof other than saying it does not fit the flow. That it was not written how we think it should is no proof at all. But agagin in matters not to me op if sections were added/edited in the Testimonium Flavianum or not. Most all would say the orginal of that section still refers to jesus,just not as messiah etc.
more for Abraham and Caesar
Please show me all the writings we have for both of those men in total. Each one. I would like to compare total documents of these two to jesus, please provide.
I disagree there is little writings on jesus,for the time period. The nt authors wrote what was believed of him [both good and bad] from the time period and place he lived,that he was believed to be the son of god has nothing to do with the accuracy or opinions of those closest in time/place to his life.
very few defend it in full. So your saying his position [not sure he wont commit] im asumning that not writings of jesus exists are genuine, is more defensible than defending than defensible than the validity of the Testimonium Flavianum in whole or part? I will take that up with you. I dont even care or think that it is original in whole, but i will defend that better than you could his position. Please define his position defend it and attack this one [just for fun].
William Craig- A former atheist historian biblical scholar well respected around the world and brings up quote in debates with atheist when they claim this.
Appeal to motive-#a conclusion is dismissed by simply calling into question the motive of the person or group proposing the conclusion. You’ll often see political organizations use this tactic. “The conclusion of Company X’s positive report on the safety of natural gas fracking can’t be true because they funded the research and have an interest in ensuring there is a positive report.” Sure, Company X may have an interest in getting a positive result for natural gas fracking, but just because they have that motive doesn’t mean the conclusion they reached is#necessarily#false. Suspect, yes, but not false.
Blaiklock- provide
Johnson -
Appeal to motive-#a conclusion is dismissed by simply calling into question the motive of the person or group proposing the conclusion. You’ll often see political organizations use this tactic. “The conclusion of Company X’s positive report on the safety of natural gas fracking can’t be true because they funded the research and have an interest in ensuring there is a positive report.” Sure, Company X may have an interest in getting a positive result for natural gas fracking, but just because they have that motive doesn’t mean the conclusion they reached is#necessarily#false. Suspect, yes, but not false.
Ehrman- anyone up to date would know bart ehrman. He is most used/quoted/media reviewed atheistic scholar who attacks the bible today, he is famous for attacking the translation of the bible. he debates often, read my translation of the bible thread, it has 2 recent debates with him, you will soon find his views.
Crossan- founded the founded the Jesus Seminar-nuff said
Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors.[citation needed] He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable.[citation needed] He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.[4]
Schweizter - challenged the prominent secular view of jesus as well as the traditional Christian view.
leading NT critical scholar Gunter Bornkamm U
sure you are right good point.
my point, they are not all chirtian,and many very liberal. But the fact is, i suggest if interested watch debates on this subject with william lane craig,denying jesus as a human as atheist bart Ehrman said, no historian would support that idea.
Braaten, Bornkamm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Funny this is just what you have had to do,originally your claim was that all references outside the bible were false or fraud, you than admitted 2 of the 3 josphus passages were correct. Than dropped the claim tacicus was false, oh and ignored all other re-fences/questions and nt for religious/bias/worldview reasons. As for the philosophical area, no idea what your saying, good is good and was before any evil, i stand by that 100%. You decided not me to end that discussion so you could "think about it". I see alot of refining on your part [more ignoring] i dont see how i have changed or any reason to logically change anything on my op.
#17 is about Jesus.
I asked you to prove the existence of a "god", and if you could prove the existence of said "god", prove that this "god" is the "god" you happen to believe in..
What part of that was hard to understand?
See, nothing else you writes is worth anything unless you can prove these two thingys...
Wrapping tinfoil around our helmets much, are we?
Oooooh, mustn't forget to go tribesman on you!!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
True, so far as it goes, but it is not the flow that is the issue...Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Bolded are the immediately problematic sections. I am sure you can see why: for Josephus to have written the bolded phrases would be like you writing a history of Christianity and including a passage on Muhammad with the words: 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet'. Now, as you point out, and I agree, this does not necessarily render the rest of the testimonium immediately invalid. But it does have an effect on the overall trustworthiness of the section. In my own research, for example, I must deal with scholars who reject the validity of Livy's First Decade as a historical source at all, on the basis that there are some obvious errors. I do not completely agree with this position either, but it is defensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josephus
I cannot give specifics re: Lincoln. He was your example, not mine, and I know very little about the American Civil War period. Regarding Caesar, a rough list would amount to: Caesar's Gallic War and Civil War; Cicero's Letters to Atticus, his friends, his Brother Quintus and Brutus; numerous speeches of Cicero (all contemporary); Nicolaus of Damascus' Life of Augustus; Velleius Paterculus' Roman History; Plutarch's Life of Caesar; Suetonius' Life of Caesar; Appian's Civil Wars; Dio's Roman History, and many later/briefer accounts. These are all independent records, they do not result from the same broad textual movement, and a large number of texts are actually originate within his lifetime (ie: his own works).Quote:
Originally Posted by TR
Again, I am not saying that the NT is not a valid source for Jesus' life, but it does represent a single hagiographical tradition, begun after his death. If you are seeking to independently verify its suggestions, you rely on an external source supporting it. For example, Josephus, Suetonius or Tacitus, but each of these has its problems, raised by Sigurd. Once more, the weight of evidence supports the existence of Jesus, but the comparisons which you are making are overstated.
True, but without resorting to tu quoque, but possible motives are worth considering. Since your original point involved numerous citations of 1960s scholars claiming 'non-Christians' found what they expected, I merely wished to point out that such a point works both ways. Even without ascribing intent, one must consider confirmation bias...Quote:
Originally Posted by TR
What? It was an anecdote...Quote:
Originally Posted by TR
But both had a Christian upbringing and were/are devout. Without the context of each quotation you cannot demonstrate their support for your position.Quote:
Ehrman- anyone up to date would know bart ehrman. He is most used/quoted/media reviewed atheistic scholar who attacks the bible today, he is famous for attacking the translation of the bible. he debates often, read my translation of the bible thread, it has 2 recent debates with him, you will soon find his views.
Crossan- founded the founded the Jesus Seminar-nuff said
Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors.[citation needed] He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable.[citation needed] He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.[4]
But once again had a strongly Christian upbringing and would not criticise the fundamental existence of Jesus, despite the controversy...Quote:
Originally Posted by TR
Liberal politics does not make one a non-traditional Christian. :bow:Quote:
sure you are right good point.
my point, they are not all chirtian,and many very liberal. But the fact is, i suggest if interested watch debates on this subject with william lane craig,denying jesus as a human as atheist bart Ehrman said, no historian would support that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I think we both know your running from your original bold claim you made on this thread that you could not back up. I will do a thread as i have said many times on evidence for god, it will not convince you as you will ignore or interpret different. Could you make a comment regarding my op?.
Red Herring Fallacy
A#red herring fallacy#is where someone tries to divert your attention away from the subject or argument by introducing a new topic. This is a defense technique often employed when the person realizes you have a logical and sound argument forming. This can even develop as an unconscious technique employed by one who wishes to protect their beliefs from any scrutiny, truly a strong self delusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
I dont disagree with you on first two sections. If this was sig position i would not object, i told him i am ok with what you have said many times. But he than goes to claim josphus as a whole [at times he did others not] is unreliable, than claims only evangelicals accept the unfolded part,to witch i disagree as being false. I would assume [dont know] that mostly or even maybe all that accept it in whole with bolded,may very well be evangelicals only,but not making it false,though i would not agree. Still i would rather defend that passage in full,compared to the view josphus as a whole is fraud.
Lincoln was bart ehrmans, i just went with it. I did not know that about Caesar if true,how many documents total would you say that is?. How many from his timeperiod or within a few hundred years of his life?.
when the nt was written,it was not a single collection, that happened hundreds of years later. The nt comes from multiple people and "traditions", peter,paul,mark,john,james,judas,luke,matt etc. So the nt is really a collection of multiple people/transitions that all are within short time period of jesus, that are confirmed by outside documents,such as Josephus with john the baptist,pilot,james the brother of Jesus,archaeology etc.
ok i can maybe agree with you, show me the multiple lines of documents about Caesar from roman and non roman sources within his time period and well compare.
and a great point it was. I just want to say tho, that craig was atheist,until he and a group of scholars looked into the evidence for the resurrection of jesus. So even if one is conservative christian,that does not mean he was born that way [none are] he was forced by the evidence to do so. Just like ehrman rejects bible lost faith because of translation of bible, so i take him seriously.
provide for this was all
"Needless to say I advised them to use extreme caution with such material and suggested that more recent scholarship might be more accurate."
i guess i take that back,giving a warning is a good idea on this,my bad.
that is why i references the debates with him on my other thread, were his views he can make clear in context for all to see. There really good debates if your interested in biblical translation.
good point
nothing to do with politics,but worldview. Though liberal is used in politics as well.
A few clarifications and I guess I am entitled to.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I challenged all external references on the factual reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Most of them only refer to Chrestus or Chrestians, which I would argue in this thread (for the sake of giving you a challenge) are referring to a group different from traditional Christians. Chrestus and Chrestians means "the good" and is far from Christ "the anointed one" and followers (Christians). They do not make a connection between the Jewish group and the name Jesus, Except Josephus, which I am entitled to distrust and throw out of the equation (I did not admit to 2 of 3 passages, that is a lie. Ignored maybe).
The other references mentioning Jesus by name e.g. Talmud have their own problems, by naming his top followers. They are not any of the disciples mentioned in the bible, suggesting this is a different Jesus (It was a common name in Judea) then claimed in NT.
I did not drop Tacitus, but gave you a link to a good report that states Tacitus is tampered with (should be dropped).
NT and OT (Bible) will have to wait until you post the thread about it (As I asked for and you agreed to do after this one).
About the philosophy, I chose to drop it because I felt you failed to consider what I wrote. It would be interesting to discuss this in full.
Unfortunately I do not have time to collate a reasonably representative sample, but if you look up the above authors at the Perseus project, you might be find what you are looking for. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...on:Greco-Roman). In terms of numbers, it depends what you define as documents.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Caesar's own 'commentaries' are contemporary, as are the (hundreds of) letters of Cicero to various people. The Latin authors Suetonius wrote biography; and Velleius (Italian) and Tacitus (possibly Gallic ancestry) history within 200 years of Caesar's death. In Greek, Plutarch (from Chaeronaia) wrote biography; Nicolaus (of Damascus) too, though his tome on Augustus is fragmentary. Appian (from Alexandria) and Dio (from Bithynia) wrote history. The point here, that the NT canon is from a much more homogenous tradition.
Religiously rather than politically conservative... My mistake...Quote:
nothing to do with politics,but worldview. Though liberal is used in politics as well.
:wall:
Seriously?
The helmet probably has its own helmet by now. Probably knee and elbow pads as well.
Sorry to be so... whatever... But it's extremely hard to debate with someone who just doesn't seem to grasp even the most simple concepts.
Let me spell it out for you:
Everything. You. Say. Is. Moot. Until. You. Can. Show. The. Existence. Of. Your. God.
Got it this time around?
It's like someone claiming there is a big pinkish invisible elephant dancing in the room, and then expect people to discuss weather the elephant likes peanuts or strawberries - while the people around him is more interested in his mental health...
:elephant: :elephant: :elephant: :elephant: :elephant: :elephant:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
your original claim post 6
"Most of, if not all, historical reference to a Christ are forgeries." "Josephus was probably forged in the 15th century to include the well known Testimonium Flavianum."
claim above
"I challenged all external references on the factual reference to Jesus of Nazareth"
yet reject the bulk of data and historical documents called the nt, the closest best attested historical data to get info on jesus, for nothing more than your own religious bias worldview reasons [some call him the son of god]. Already you have admitted defeat here, unless on historical grounds you can argue they all made this person up and he was not a real person.
Josephus
you now claim to reject all passages about jesus,such as james his brother etc this is based on what? you would be only person in world to reject as far as i am aware. Your reason,you think [with no historical data to show] that another section was tampered with at some time pre 4th century. You never responded to the responses given, or that most accept portions of what you reject. You remain silent.
[from left wing wiki] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"
as well as
Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic
you said
"(I did not admit to 2 of 3 passages, that is a lie. Ignored maybe)"
i guess i did assume by your non answer that you accepted those passages as well.
the Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus,#Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.
Tacitus
you say "I did not drop Tacitus, but gave you a link to a good report that states Tacitus is tampered with (should be dropped). "
Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
please tell me who this is speaking of if not jesus and christian that started in judea that fits the time period, oh and leader crucified under Pontius Pilate and had followers in rome.
Christus
Means "anointed", derived from Greek χριω (chrio) "to anoint". This was a name applied to Jesus by early Greek-speaking Christians. It is a translation of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), commonly spelled in English messiah, which also means "anointed".
your argument is about one letter your link admitted is a theory,you will hear alot of things like
"it is possible to hypothesize that there was an "e" under the actual "i"" and the like. your article admits to not giving all the evidence and arguments.
it says
«even if this change was made already by the copyist, the original 'e' does not lose its meaning. In that case the copyist,
which Andresen has explained, could very well have found the form "chrestianos" in his
original, and by himself changed the strange "e" into the familiar "i".» (my translation)
For the sake of clarity, I will add that this particular manuscript of Annales does not contain the name Chrestus. No evidence of any alteration of the word “Christus” can be found in the ultraviolet photograph.
this is no fact and does not change the clear meaning of who the passage is referring to.
you did not respond to
Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112) spoke of the "troublesome sect of Christians."-were do we get christian at that time/space from? with no jesus?.
Suetonius (A.D. 120) spoke of disturbances over "Chrestus" (Christ).
Means "anointed", derived from Greek χριω (chrio) "to anoint". This was a name applied to Jesus by early Greek-speaking Christians. It is a translation of the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), commonly spelled in English messiah, which also means "anointed".
Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and references in the Talmud and other Jewish writings.#Encyclopædia Britannica#sums up the force of the data:
“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th#centuries.”
as for philosophy, i would love to continue, you said you needed time to think, you never met someone who believed what i did [you claimed].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
you said there was more written about ceaser than jesus,more different sources. I counted 7 from your above [tell me if i am wrong] I would also like to know what they say of him.
There are many more than 7 documents of jesus that make up the nt would you agree?. Plus outside of the nt.
There were nine authors cited by name, but this is where things get interesting. Caesar himself wrote the 8 Books on the Gallic War; 3 on the Civil War; Cicero delivered over 50 extant speeches, many of which refer to Caesar and some of which directly address him; he also wrote hundreds of letters, most of which discuss contemporary political events and Caesar's actions. Moreover, some of Cicero's late philosophical works also refer to Caesar. These works were composed in Caesar's lifetime. By contrast no records of Jesus survive from his lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
The majority of the historical record concerning Jesus was laid out from about CE 60-200, IIRC. It consists of the New Testament, which you suggest contains many more documents than the nine authors I cited. However, how many of the Biblical books actually deal with Jesus' life directly? I grant you the Gospels, but the Acts and Revelation do not. Then there are the epistles, which if I understand correctly, contain some scattered details, but do not primarily deal with his life.
By contrast, the later historical tradition on Caesar, limited to ~20 BCE-220 CE, is much larger. The surviving sections of Nicolaus deal largely with Caesar's dictatorship. The Lives of Plutarch and Suetonius contain an almost complete record of his life. Appian and Dio who wrote 24 and 80 books respectively, dealing with Roman history have numerous relevant sections, in Dio Books 37-45 deal with the period of Caesarian political dominance. There are also numerous briefer references, which would correspond to the epistolary tradition for Jesus: I mentioned Velleius and Tacitus, who briefly touch on Caesar, but I might have included: Josephus, Florus, Aurelius Victor, or even Vergil, as well as still others. There are even epigraphic records such as the consular fasti.
Moreover, as I noted before, the NT tradition is rather homogenous: it is the product of men who believed in Jesus' divinity, from a particular cultural background, who lived within a fixed area. By contrast, the Caesarian tradition covers multiple genres, multiple regions, two different languages and cultural backgrounds. Moreover some authors are highly critical of Caesar (eg. Cicero was his political adversary), presenting a more balanced account to posterity. Even including those references scattered throughout Greco-Roman literature, and the epistles, there is much more verifiable ancient material on Caesar than Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Moreover this bitc#, lol. I did not know all this about Caesar i am willing to say my comparison with him may very well have been a wrong one and thanks for correcting it.
But just to ask without assuming all you say is true.
how many total documents [including copies] are there for both these men? clearly jesus wins that.
you said there was 9 authors- jesus has slightly more than that,especially if one counts the non canonical "gospels" and the like.
Caesar himself wrote the 8 Books- what time period is the original writings from just wondering,the earliest copies.
Cicero- i really dont have anything here to try and argue. except question how many of these refer to him and what the earliest manuscript timeframe was from. I would not agree that nothing from jesus time was copied,i think it was and used later in the official gospels.
you said
The majority of the historical record concerning Jesus was laid out from about CE 60-200
I would say from 40's-90 ad for nt. If your including non canonical than yes later.
you said
Moreover, as I noted before, the NT tradition is rather homogenous: it is the product of men who believed in Jesus' divinity, from a particular cultural background, who lived within a fixed area. By contrast, the Caesarian tradition covers multiple genres, multiple regions, two different languages and cultural backgrounds. Moreover some authors are highly critical of Caesar (eg. Cicero was his political adversary)
NT alone sure,but that matters not to the historicity of the documents,just the beliefs of the writers [not born that way], did not some see Caesar as a god?. i would not than question if he were a true person. But the nt has accounts of enemies of jesus and what they said of him as well. Plus there is Gnostic views of him,Koranic,jewish,roman etc not just from nt. Writings of jesus as well cover langues cultures etc. But in the end good post and i wont compare them together anymore.
Thank you, this has been an interesting discussion. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I will merely answer the questions which you raised.
This is a question which I cannot answer accurately, as it is dependent on too many variables. I presume that you are correct, since during the early-high medieval period (from which most manuscripts of ancient texts survive) copies of the Bible were the main object of copyists work. Volume does not always mean much, however, except insofar as more manuscripts means less errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Nine which I named, there are more, as well as archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
This is still controversial: either during the Gallic War itself, year-by-year from 59-51 BCE, or at some point afterwards, before his death in 44 BCE. As to the earliest surviving manuscripts, I am not sure unfortunately. I would guess 8th-12th Century CE.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Again, I do not have absolute numbers: the letters and speeches deal with political life from the 60s-43 BCE, and cover the majority of Caesar’s political life. Even if there is no direct reference to Caesar, there are issues raised by Cicero and his correspondents which would be pertinent to the study of Caesar’s life. Once again, I do not have specifics on the manuscript tradition of all these works, I believe some fragments are from 5th-6th century manuscripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Yes, I meant both canonical and non-canonical.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Beliefs of the writers do have a bearing on the possible veracity of the account though. Yes, Caesar was worshipped, and later officially deified after his death. However, due to the way in which the Romans conceived of (what was later) the Imperial cult Caesar’s posthumous divinity had little bearing on his actions in life. The NT does indeed contain references to what the enemies of Jesus said, but through the lens of his supporters. Cicero and the historians when they criticise are expressing their own opinions not reporting those of others. It is simply more direct.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Certainly there are other views, but in the main, they are much later. Islamic traditions only originate in the 8th century CE. The Jewish and Roman traditions are subject to suspicion by some, and add very few details.
Just to reiterate, I am confident that Jesus was a historical individual, but there is little independently verifiable information regarding his life, outside of the NT, especially when compared to a figure like C. Iulius Caesar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
sorry did not break up because time.
numbers,true but usually for most documents there are very few in ancient time,unlike the nt, that is were it separates itself greatly and adds to its authority as to accuracy. Many other documents have long time periods to when written to surviving documents.
oh ok,same for jesus/nt.
that is big difference to nt agreed?.
im not saying they are not, i just was saying if were comparing documents/authors to jesus/cesar, than they need to speak of him,not just things that have to do with his time period, otherwise that would bring in alot more for jesus.
well if you take writings of Caesar as bias as you do nt, than who decides what has to be attested?. But again has nothing to do with if that person is historical,that is topic of thread.
I would say a better comparison would be Romulus and Remus.
Or Pythagoras.
Pythagoras was irrational and died for his sins :drummer: