responding to common objections to bible part 6 final.

[total relism]

I'm afraid some lurkers might think this is an actual discussion.

TR, you cant refer to threads where your points have been shot down repeatedly as evidence supporting your new, as idiotic, claims

Does your parents make you wear a helmet much?

kadagar, you cant refer to things that did not happen or you have no evidence for,you need to provide support or link as i do to show truth or what happened. Your claim is baseless and unsupported,did not your parents teach you to not lie and make baseless claims?

I will prove i am correct by asking you to back up your claim,you say somewhere i have referenced a previous thread on a topic already brought up,that has been refuted and shown to be idiotic and my points "shot down". now we all have threads avalibel to look over, so now all you must do is go find on this thread my reference to previous that was shot down,than show were/how it was shot down [be sure to include why any response given is false].

good luck my friend.

Dear TR...

My world view does not demand that Jesus was fictional. Not at all. I am not an atheist.
I have beef with evangelism, that might be true and as such I could come forward as a little bias towards claims from that group. My experience with said group has led me to believe they are extremists and as such will believe they go to great lengths to support their facts. Even fraud and forgery.
That is about the extent on which I will comment on said group, as it might get quite nasty should I get worked up by it.

I do not reject the Bible, but chose to not include it in my criticism towards reference to historical Jesus. The obvious reason being - that it indisputable refers to the character of Jesus the son of God. I have my thoughts about the origin of the Bible, but I am not arguing this here. This is about external reference by non-Christian historians. Christ or Messiah was a promised leader that would redeem the Jews from oppression/slavery etc. It was foremost a Jewish tradition and Christ is just the translation of Messiah in Greek. The anointed one.

The were many claimants to this title: Judas of Maccabeus, Simon of Peraea, Judas of Galilee and later his grandson Menahem, Theudas etc.. basically any of the leaders of any revolt would be a possible messiah as the Jews saw it. Even Josephus himself was a revolt leader before recording the history of the Jews. That is why one should look with a critical eye towards, not considering tampering with said references, these Christian claims (because that is what we are dealing with here) that a record speaks about Jesus from Nazareth. It could be any of the revolt leaders. Ask a Jewish historian about these references and he will find many candidates to them, because we are in fact dealing with Jewish history here.

Atheist scholars... hehe... well most of them are a joke. No.. I refer to the established school before pseudo scholars from the new age Christianity came with their pre-conceived idea that the Bible is the literal, unfalsifiable, unerring and infallible product of God. A ridiculous idea to most scholars.
A scholar is a methodological scientist and will be as objective as possible when doing research. I doubt extremists fall into that category.

than please provide why you reject nt as historical documents.

also i do not give evangelism ideas/facts. but historical documents and quotes from liberal over and over, that just goes to show they support the idea jesus was real person because you think they are from evangelist. But if you fell that my op or documents were by them please support, in fact most were anti christian or enemies for historical documents. Than the modern scholars quoted are atheist liberals. But your dealings with some people should never cloud how you view historical documents that support a group you dont like because of personal dealings.


?so as i said all along, because the nt says [the closest historical documents to jesus in time should be most authentic] you reject because it says jesus is son of god. That does not match or fit with your religious worldview so you reject it, not based on historical data. This thread is not about if jesus is who the bible says, but was Jesus a actual person. as for jewish tradition, yes the ot speaks of coming messiah,jesus was jewish,Christianity is jewish 100%.




33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
acts 5



you than claim
"that a record speaks about Jesus from Nazareth. It could be any of the revolt leaders"

please support, what jesus from nazareth at that time led a revolt and was crucified?, you so easily ignore all evidence that does not fit what you like.




I will allow your last part you wrote to stand and have you read again. I am surprised at it,as you seem to follow the rest somewhat well. If anyone is following just read what i wrote him ,than read what he wrote as a response and how he contradicts himself clearly. Its like you cant see what is true.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
romans 1


btw this is what you responded to on your last part
maybe read my post, you will see atheist liberal scholars, that is why i quoted liberals as saying no one rejects, you sir are on the fringe and the end of the joke, even to liberals on this one. Simple read your explanations you give, only your religious worldview could drive those conclusions, not historical data.