Well i've finished the whole ding dang Bible, cover to cover! Can't say i've become Christian but im basically a Bible scholar now lol. Any questions?

@Entwistle

Well i didn't believe the supernatural claims but there was still a lot of good reading in there i thought.

@Pikachu Yeah some good ideas maybe..but human good ideas.

@Entwistle

That's definitely my impression. A very human book.

@Entwistle [quote]some good ideas maybe.[/quote]
None that can't be found in better, less offensive, literature.

Thank you for confirming what the Bible itself says. Simple says that the gospel is an offence. Why do you think Jesus was crucified?@Sharon

@1354swrdt [quote]Why do you think Jesus was crucified[/quote]
There's no real evidence he ever existed but the myth is that he was nailed up (to a tree according to the bible) for sedition and treason. Strangely, the Romans didn't record the event. 🤔

That is of course a statement born of ignorance. You might as well say Julius Caesar never existed, not even someone like Dawkins would b3 so stupid as to say that! 🤣@Sharon

@1354swrdt [quote]That is of course a statement born of ignorance.[/quote]
Let's see you present some real, independently verifiable, evidence thatJesus actually existed then. Even the bible isn't clear as to when he was supposed to have lived.

There is more documented evidence than for any other ancient history, New Testament is quite clear. Luke even gives dates. Unless you’re going to tear up all ancient history there is as much documentary evidence about Jesus as about anything else and usually more. @Sharon

@1354swrdt [quote]There is more documented evidence than for any other ancient history[/quote]
Lot of christians say that yet not one has ever managed to present a single shred of it. Why is that?

The bible is not an independent or even reliable source. Using the timelines therein, Jesus could not have been born any later than 6BCE nor any earlier than 6CE. Obviously that's impossible.

The book of Luke was written a long while after the claimed events and, in any case, doesn't give dates.

Yes but most ancient history comes from single sources and the New Testament is made up of many sources. Luke has been shown to be a highly reliable historian - one of the greatest of all ancient historians in fact according to many scholars. The birth date of Jesus was no fault of the gospel writers but of the monk who much later calculated it and got it wrong@Sharon

@1354swrdt [quote]most ancient history comes from single sources[/quote]
Not at all. It's verified by reference to multiple sources. The bible is a cherry picked collection of hearsay. Luke, like the other three, is not reliable at all. You said Luke gives dates for the life of Jesus. What dates did he give?

You are of course totally wrong. You are just shooting in the dark and have no idea at all about what you’re talking about. Prove to me that Luke is unreliable? It’s not up to me to prove that Luke is reliable because we know that archeology again and again proves him so. The problem is you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t mind you not believing that for goodness sake don’t launch an attack on something you know nothing about@Sharon

@1354swrdt [quote]You are of course totally wrong. [/quote]
That's exactly how Speedyman always tried to refute what others said. ;) He was never able to explain why either - probabbly because you (and he) know I'm right.

You claimed Luke is relaible and give dates for Jesus's life yet you've totally failed to present anything to back up either of those claims.

It seems I know the bible far better than you do. All you have to offer are silly, childish, insults.

I don’t need to. Prove him wrong. @Sharon

@1354swrdt You made the claim that Luke is reliable. The fact that you are unable to back up that claim is evidence that you're wrong. But we both knew that already.

Scholars claim that Luke is reliable. Back up your claim that he isn’t! @Sharon

@1354swrdt [quote]Scholars claim that Luke is reliable[/quote]
Cite?

Luke is “among the historians of the first rank.” (Sir William Ramsay ) @Sharon]

@1354swrdt One person's opinion isn't very persuasive.

Except when he knows infinitely more than you do and has done a lot of research. The problem is ignorance. You don’t know what you’re talking about@Sharon

@1354swrdt

I think the problem arises not from mundane claims about dates and places but the supernatural claims because the fact is that those claims only exist in the bible. Surrounding cultures and contemporary historians just aren't reporting these mind-blowing miracles...and that's telling.

You obviously are little acquainted with other cultures! They do not find supernatural happenings strange. Of course it is as Paul said to Agrippa, “Why do you think it incredible that God should raise the dead?” If God is the creator of this vast cosmos, why is it incredible that when he intervenes in our space-time continuum that amazing things happen? It is only our limited experience and western worldview that gets in the way. @Pikachu

@1354swrdt [quote] he knows infinitely more than you do[/quote]
Yet other scholars, who have also done a lot of research since, disagree with him.

[quote]The problem is ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, yours. You've just cherry picked snippets of information that happens to fit your prejudices and ignored everything that doesn't. You must be Speedyman's clone. He didn't know what he was talking about either.

@1354swrdt

[quote] They do not find supernatural happenings strange[/quote]

Sorry, this is not a coherent argument. This is nothing.

So why weren't other historians talking about this?
Do you want to argue that Jesus' miracles were so [i]mundane[/i] that they didn't bear mentioning?

If the miracles attributed to Jesus were common occurrence then they would not have been repeatedly described as signs and miracles proving his divinity.
If they were indeed inspirational and amazing events then contemporary historians would surely have remarked upon them.

You miss the point. It's not that ancient cultures weren't accepting of supernatural occurrences, it's that they found such occurrences (or claims thereof) [i]amazing[/i]...and yet no contemporary historian mentions them.

Paul (a believer) saying "my god is so powerful, of course he can raise the dead" is not a meaningful explanation for why no other fucker thought to write about it.