The Bible, Jesus and God - (we cant just go making things up)? a discussion - Page 11

I don't know what happened to Roman Historians. Do you? or are you just speculating?

As far as I know there was no decree at the time that required no mention of Jesus in texts. Even if there was, it would be very hard to enforce as was seen by the spread of Christianity.

I am not even asking for a Roman historian. I am asking for any contemporary account that contains a passing reference to the miracles or Jesus etc.

He is a contemporary of Jesus, he's the most well known historian of Jesus day.

Contemporary means:

And he is certainly from the same time or period.

Sure, no problem. You wrote:

You moved the goal posts. And 50 years is not a significant amount of time after wards. I could easily write about the 1960's right now, interview people who were there (my parents), get eye witness accounts (Thousands upon thousands of people saw Jesus) and have it be a historically accurate account of the 1960's.

To say my account would not be "contemporary" is grasping at straws.

That's funny, you've asked for contemporary non biblical sources and were given that.

Apparently you've re-defined contemporary so that you're belief fits in a nice little box. However, the Didache is certainly a contemporary work, as it was written first century, just as Josephus account was written 1st century.

So if you want to re-ask your question, "What sources are non-biblical and written while Jesus was alive?" the answer, as far as I can tell, is none.

Most historians though would tell you, "So what?"


I wasn't talking about history, I was talking about you.

While your first two questions have been completely satisfied, you've merely moved the goal posts. Non-biblical contemporary sources have been established.

What you don't seem to understand is that scholars except same century historical accounts for evidence of ancient history.

If you want to move the goal posts, fine, but let's not pretend that you're being reasonable here.

No matter what evidence is provided to you, you've started from the position that you will not believe. Notice I said will. It's an important word.

Rgman what do you believe in?

He was a historian. Was he writing a contemporary account of history?


"Contemporary history describes the historical time frame that are immediately relevant to the present and is a certain perspective of modern history"


No, he wasn't. He was writing about the past not the present.

Neither was he a contemporary of Jesus. In that case, I am now a contemporary of Albert Einstein.

Since we are talking about history and historical accounts then it would be normal to use that definition when regarding contemporary accounts of Jesus.




Yes. I am not asking. No question mark.

I am just stating it is not contemporary or an eye witness.

Anyway, if it isn't contemporary then it isn't eye witness.


I never said it was historically inaccurate. I just said it wasn't contemporary.

50 years is a long time. The Average life expectancy in Ancient Rome was 30 years. Therefore, a gap of more than 50 years, is significant.

It isn't even 50 years. It is closer to 57-67 years.


The only question I asked was which one of the Apogropha was contemporary. You have just made up the others.

Neither is the Didache contemporary. At best, it was written at the end of the
first century, significantly after the death of Jesus.




This hasn't got anything to do with the standards that scholars accept as evidence. I wasn't disputing the historicity of the evidence available and whether scholars should accept it or not.

RGMAN

I wasn't sure that is why I asked. I'd like to ask though. Where are the facts to fully support the evolutionary theory of creation though? So much of what they pass of as fact ends up blowing up sky high.

Let's take the Coelacanths for instance. The evolutionists claimed that is has been "extinct" for 65 million years but lo and behold someone caught one off the coast of South Africa in the 30's. And it was alive and well... OOPS!!!!.

Either that fish was over 65 million yrs old (I wonder if he had Alzheimers) or the evolutionists were wrong.

I can give thousands of examples of where evolutionary theories has been disproven wrong by, of all people, evolutionists!

Not a very solid foundation to stand on if you ask me.

Yet no one has ever been able to disprove one word of the Bible. I actually offered "JAZ" a $5000 challenge a couple days ago to prove one and I'm yet to get a response. Yet not long before that he posted that the Bible is full of contradictions. Well if so why isn't he cashing in? Either he has undeniable proof or he is full of hot air.

Am I staying awake at night worrying about having to fork out $5000? NOPE! I've been making similar challenges for the last 25 yrs and I am yet to run into ONE person who could, beyond a doubt, prove the Bible errs.

Much like in a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt to me. Evolution has been proven a hoax. The Bible hasn't.

I'll continue to stand on the rock (1. Cor. 10:4)

http://www.dinofish.com/

That is the WORST straw man argument yet.





Face Palm.

That doesn't disprove evolution. There is no requirement for animals to evolve. Therefore the fact that the Coelacanth didn't change doesn't make a difference.

Neither did evolutionists say it was extinct since it had no concern in their field of study, until its rediscovery. It was the concern of ichthyologists and paleontologists.

If you don't know what evolution is about, then don't talk about it.

You're attempt to re-define contemporary is meaningless and a butchering of language.

Why not just drop the word all together and say what you want to say. Who was alive during Jesus day that was not a Christian.

Which is, according to Historians, a bogus question. Why?

As ive stated several times, which you don't seem to understand, there are many who witnessed Jesus miracles and still did not believe in Him.

This is a catch 22 though. Josephus wrote of Christ:

But what do Historians think about this?

Oh, I get it. Josephus wasn't a Christian. If he wasn't a Christian, then he wouldn't have written that Jesus was the Christ. Therefore, anything he wrote about Jesus being the Christ must be incorrect.

Nice circular reasoning there.

So there you have it. You needn't ever worry about a non Biblical source because by definition, they cannot exist!

Viola!

On the other hand, if you're interested in truth (And I wouldn't accuse you of such a thing) then you'll accept the overwhelming historical accounts of Christ.

Unfortunately, all those who thought to write about Christ were murdered by the Romans. And since their writings were included in a book we now call the Bible, they must not be acceptable historical accounts because....

Well, the because escapes me, but i'm sure you've convinced yourself of something to help you sleep at night.

Nothing disproves evolution.
What could disprove evolution? Darwin had an idea, but that has now been rejected as it disproved his theories.

If you want to ask that then go ahead. I never did.

I made an accurate statement. There is no contemporary non biblical evidence of Jesus or his miracles.

Josephus wrote 57-67 years after the events. Therefore, he isn't a contemporary of Jesus and neither is his account of Jesus.

As I have said before the accuracy of Josephus is not in question here, so I am not sure why you keep on writing about it.




I am not sure how that is linked to whether there are contemporary accounts of Jesus or not.


Yes, like I said initially. I was always telling the truth. There are no contemporary non biblical accounts of Jesus or his miracles.

No one wrote about zombies walking around Jerusalem, an earthquake and etc.

Jaz... you'd better cash in on this....

Because your point is both inaccurate and meaningless.

Josephus is considered a contemporary of Jesus, ancient history is treated differently than recent history.

And it's meaningless because you've just stated you don't deny the accuracy of Josephus writings. Although i've a feeling you must mean something different than the common definition of accuracy.

Why continue to quibble if you know there are non biblical sources that you've asked for, namely, Josephus?

It's not. It's linked to people being alive while Jesus was alive and writing about it.

To be accurate, you have to re-define contemporary to mean something other than what it means.

I guess you'd have to re-define zombies in order to make any sense with the above.

Why not get us a dictionary first, before writing here, so we can figure out how you've re-defined words in order to "win" arguments.

That might clear some things up.

Yet, you initially attempted to compare the writing of recent and ancient history by saying that an account of the 60's was contemporary by claiming 50 years was not that long.

Give me a credible historian that names Josephus to be a contemporary of Jesus and has your definition of contemporary. That is anything written within the century of an event is contemporary.





No, I am not denying it because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I am not engaging in a side discussion that has nothing to do with the original point.






Because he isn't contemporary. I said there were no contemporary non biblical sources about Jesus.

IT was written 57-67 years after the fact. The average age of a person was 30 years old. Therefore, making the vast gap even more significant.



:

So it has nothing to do with my original point then.

It's not. You don't need to interview someone of average age, only someone who has lived through it. Even if Average age today was 30 years, you could still find plenty of people who lived through the 50's and 60's.

Heh, no thanks. With your re definition of words to meet your current desire, finding someone you believe to be a "credible" "historian" would prove impossible, i'm sure.

Instead, I gave you the definition of contemporary.


The original point has nothing to do with contemporary accounts of Jesus and his miracles. If you recall, I was the one making the original point which this whole contemporary nonsense became a distraction of.

This is what I wrote;

To which you demanded contemporary, non biblical sources.

Which missed my point. You've already made clear you do not believe prophecy in the Bible. You asked for an example. My point was that no example would convince you. That there could be no proof that would be enough for you.

The point about those seeing Christ was an illustration to which you've made a distraction.

Nothing is going to convince you. Even if Christ came down from the heavens before your eyes and raised the dead, you still would not believe.

My post was more to Richm, than to you.

You'll even go to great length to redefine words in order not to believe.

Yes, and you were wrong. When you're wrong, best thing to do is go about re-defining your words so that you appear right.

Yeah, because if the average age was 30 years old, no one lived to be 100.

My point is reinforced by your distraction.

There is no reason for Richm to provide you with prophecy, as you've demonstrated quite clearly. Nothing is going to convince you. Even if the prophecy was spot on, you'd simply re define the words.

Who cares. You believe in what you want to believe, and so forth. Arguing what is supposed to be a spiritual awakening will never draw anyone to their knees. So just stop. Jesus wanted us to be fed from the tree of life, not the tree of knowledge, and the more this argument is drawn out you are feeding from the tree of knowledge whether your intentions are good or not, it looks bad so you know.

But just a two cents for the other side too, the more you contend to argue about how God isn't real or the Bible is a hoax does subliminally point to something. I don't ever involve myself in things I think are a waste of time unless I have a vendetta or a secret rebellion. If you have a vendetta against Christianity or in inward rebellion towards a higher power, you may want to examine why.

In the title of this thread, There is (we cant just go making things up)?

Consider this thought,

Many Christians feel strongly and have been taught
that if they believe in Christ they will go to heaven.

So is this for real or made up?, What does the bible say?


With out going into great detail consider this, Jesus, in his model prayer, (Matt 6:9-10) said we should pray for God will to take place upon the earth.
(Psalms: 37:29) The rightous themselves will posses the earth and they will reside forever upon it.

While the bible does talk about a select few that would have a heavenly hope and and have a purpose, the bible seems to make it clear that for the majority of Christs followers would have a earthly hope.

Heaven is usaully imagined as a place of beauty and pleasure where people
gain relief from suffering and are reunited with loved ones.

And yet, for most, Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die to get there. If we where designed to die and go to heaven, would not more people look forward to it?

I believe man is meant to live upon the earth, and that Gods promise is to cleanse the earth and beautify it, and those that live in harmony with his will
will inherit and work to keep it so.

You cannot prove that God does not exist, so he does.

Again, this has nothing to do with the accuracy of the account. AS I wrote before, the average age was to illustrate the significance of the length of the gap.

It is more like the 40's/50's not 50's/60's.



So there isn't a historian that uses your definition of contemporary. That is an account within the century of the event becomes contemporary.




Yes, and that conversation ended.



I know what your point is. I ended it when I made a point extraneous to that. You continued my point. Hence marking the end of the original conversation.

I made it fairly clear I didn't wish to engage in two discussions at once.



I am not redefining. We are talking about contemporary historical accounts:

Contemporary:

1.existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time:
So the account didn't occur/exist at the same time at Jesus. So according to this definition it is not contemporary.


2.of about the same age or date

No, they were not about the same date . The account was written 57-67 years after the death of Jesus. So they are not contemporary.


3.of the present time; modern:

Not this either.

Synonyms: coexistent, concurrent, simultaneous.

Wiki: Contemporary History: "Contemporary history describes the historical timeframe that are immediately relevant to the present"

Josephus was never writing relevant to the present. He was writing about the past. So again, he was not writing contemporary history.


That is unless you can find one scholar/historian to agrees with your definition of contemporary.

Was there supposed to be science hidden in this argument somewhere? Dude, stick to preaching, because very few Christians are able to argue science on the behalf of their religion. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts...don't confuse the two.

Russell's Teapot.