Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
Sigurd

TR, When I think of you, I can't help but think of the Benny Hill theme song. Your arguments seem to kind of rhythm with it.

Why is this your final post on the issue though? I kind of like following your posts, Benny Hill theme on loudest volume, while I eat my morning cereals.
well i dont know of benny hill, but he must be a awesome guy. This is not my final post on Christianity, just on the common objection to bible,in fact my next post i think you will enjoy most.

Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
According to the Bible... Well I need to be shown that specific reference. Especially the part where God existed as good before evil ever was.
Genesis mentions light being good in genesis 1... as contrasted to darkness (being evil?) That is the very first this conceptual idea is mentioned in the bible. The next is about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The first time evil is mentioned and apparently a conceptual opposite of good.
And murdering would in this context be an action under the conceptual umbrella of evil. Can murder be good?
Good and evil as concepts need each other to make sense. God alone in the void and good would have no meaning unless contrasted to something else that was not good. As a concept it is void in itself alone.


Clear indication that you didn't read my post. nt is part of the bible right? And I think I am more towards the center and objectivity when it comes to bias wouldn't you think? (Dark and sooted kettle calling a sparkling shiny new copper pot for black).
No... your references except Josephus does not mention Jesus. They do however mention Chrestos which is "the good" Tacitus has been shown is a forgery changing chrestianos to Christianos. Even if we should agree to the word Christ, it is but a title and not necessarily referencing Jesus from Nazareth, but some leader amongst the Jews. Suetonius mentions Chrestus being in Rome leading his followers in 54 AD, wouldn't that be contrary to the NT? Jesus leaving the disciples (33 AD) never to return until the second coming? According to the NT, Jesus never went to the Gentiles.
You could go and gather other pre 4th century historic references about Jesus, but will most likely find that they are not talking about the Jesus of Nazaret as portrayed in the NT. Too many contradictions with the gospels.

(I guess you didn't see my edited post 30 min prior to your latest post)
I am not going to dissect your Josephus section. I will however say this; It has been shown that the particular section (TF) about Jesus being the Christ has been tampered with, nobody denies this.
The fact that it has been tampered with means it has been invalidated. It is no longer trustworthy. Also... Josephus having religious doubts, takes us through the different sects of his early days (about 50 AD). He does not mention Christianity. He mentions Pharisees, Sadducee, Essene and a forth sect lead by a man named Judas. If he later proclaims Jesus as Christ, wouldn't he have included Christians in his musings as Antiquity of the Jews was written about 70AD?



Not sure were you get info on bible on, its online for free multiple translation as well.
http://www.biblegateway.com/

the bible says god is good and no evil is with him,it also says he is eternal before the world was,everything besides him was created. So he was good before any evil was done [by created beings,human,angelic]. but as i said before, god by nature is good, he is the law giver and his actions is in line with his nature of being good,so good is good,love,etc without bad being there, evil comes later, that does not make gods nature before evil not good. This is clear theme in genesis and bible,the fall of man,fall of perfection,origin of evil etc.




you did not answer,i said on what basis do you reject the nt as not being the earliest closest most relabel source for the person of jesus. Only your bias religious worldview rejects historical documents because of what they contain.



I think you need to reread my op, I gave many references outside the bible to jesus, you already admitted Josephus referenced him. Even your own link on tactitus said


"Chrestiani, “Chrestians”, which might be what the Romans called the Christians, according to some scholars."



from left wing wiki

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea




from tacitus

, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.


this event clearly speaks of jesus and Christians, you cant hide from it in anyway about questioning one letter in a word.



please provide for me this
"Suetonius mentions Chrestus being in Rome leading his followers in 54 AD"




Josephus
I agree as this is very debated in depth subject,anyone can go find arguments for and against each position. You claim that no one denies it has been tampered with, that is false and a lie. Not all agree that anything has been tapered with,in fact there is no document evidence it ever was. it is a claim. As i statted very few believe that the parts i referred to as referring to jesus as historical person,are false or tampered with,just certain small sections. Besides he refers to jesus in other places that noone considers tampered with. The fact is he does refer to christian,you just deny it. As a atheist scholar said, why accept Abraham Lincoln?.