responding to common objections to bible part 6 final.

[Sigurd]

than please provide why you reject nt as historical documents.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 but historical documents and quotes from liberal over and over, that just goes to show they support the idea jesus was real person because you think they are from evangelist. But if you fell that my op or documents were by them please support, in fact most were anti christian or enemies for historical documents.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 But your dealings with some people should never cloud how you view historical documents that support a group you dont like because of personal dealings.

?so as i said all along, because the nt says [the closest historical documents to jesus in time should be most authentic] you reject because it says jesus is son of god.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%.

I am sorry m8... you English is really starting to degrade. I am having trouble understanding the meaning behind what you write.
I already told you that I will not discuss NT as evidence for historical Jesus. What would the point be? It was written by "Christians".

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

And quoting the Bible will counter exactly which claim I made? That the Jews considered more candidates to the title of Messiah? Disciples killed and dispersed? and what exactly happened to Jesus' followers according to the Bible? What did Jesus prophesy would happen to his followers in the near future according to the Bible?

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.

That is my whole claim... there are no Jesus from Nazareth in any of the references. Josephus' TF is a fraud. The rest does not mention the name of Jesus of Nazareth. You mention e.g. Talmud. Have you actually read the reference there?


On the liberal vs evangelical scholars.
I am familiar with the use of "supporting" references by extremists. They usually quote out of context and "adjust" the quote a little to make it suit their agenda. I have been quoted like that many times. Most resent example in the last quote above.
I take such quotes with a grain of salt until I am able to read it in context and by the originator.