Biblical contradictions II

Hi, Theologian63! This is from the Forum Guidelines:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

Moving on: More from the Forum Guidelines:

7. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

Persistent guideline violations can result in a suspension of posting privileges. If this should happen, posting privileges can be restored by sending email to Admin containing assurances that the guidelines will be followed in the future.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Percy,
Did you read the part about me "trying to keep to the topic"? I recall using the word sorry too.

Hi Theo,I think you need to check your sources and be a littel more critical in your thinking. For example, you state: Tacitus as born around 55-56 CE, but he didnt write his Annals until about 116 AD, and his reference is minimal, he is simply repeating a belief held by a group, this is not confirmation that Jesus existed, in fact, Tacitus doesnt mention jesus.Josephus was also not a contemporary of Jesus as Jesus was dead before Josephus was born. And, since you are a theologian, you know how Christans have faked Josephus' work?Tertullian lived in the mid to late 3rd century CE, how is this evidence of someone living 150 plus years before?Thallus, not much use either really, where does he mention jesus? To claim that Thallus' record of an eclipse is evidence that Jesus existed, is really stretching it a lot.Your other two sources are hopeless as evidence.Brian

HOw about Simon Greenleaf or Frank Morrison? This is just heresay until I see it. Can you point me to a source that says Josephus's works were doctored? I see a lot of words but little substantiation. Living in the 3rd century in now way discounts a person's knowledge of an historical figure.

Hi, Theo!This is off-topic for this thread: So I have replied to you in Message 96 of the Is the Bible the Word of God II thread.--Percy

These two lived more than 1800 years after jesus, how can they be witnesses to his existence?Re Josephus, this is really basic bible studies, do a websearch for 'Testimonium Flavius', or 'Josephus forged'. One big problem withthe Josephus quote is that he allegedly said that Jesus was the Messiah, then continued to live as a pharisaic Jew until he died. I am astounded that a theologian doesnt know this.Also, re authorship of the Torah, read Julius Welhaussen, another basic introduction to any biblical studies course.The 'Documentary Hypothesis' explains why there are often doublets or even triplets of the same story in the torah. It explains why there are two creation accounts, two flood narratives and two exodus accounts. It also explains the interchanging use of El and YWHW.Living in the third century does not qualifiy you as an eyewitness, what sources was this thrid century person using?Brian.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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," Tacitus
Granted he doesn't use Jesus but rather his Heavenly name Christus(Christ) Maybe I got the dates mixed up but that DOESN'T discount the content. A MINIMAL mention is STILL a mention. He named HIm, that's all I was saying. Why do you discount Simon Greenleef? He founded Harvard School of LAw. I think his ability to anaylze data would suffice.

Man , this is really nit picking. Thanks for the mental exercise all.

Tacitus simply didnt mention Jesus, as you agree. 'Christ' means 'annointed', and Christs were ten a penny in Palestine, in fact, every King of Israel was a 'Christ', a Messiah. Tacitus' reference may also be a late addition to his annals, the 'author' even gets Pilate's title wrong. ut as I said, even if this is Jesus, it does not confirm his existence, it only confirms that there were a group called 'christians' and they take their name from an entity that may or not have been real.I know who simon greenleaf is and regarding his ability to analyse sources, do you know which sources he used?

Hi, Theo!You quoted this from the The Hubble constant and the expansion age of the Universe reference provided by Mark: To this you replied: It is the traditional style of scientific expression to take the passive voice and state conclusions tentatively. This is as it should be, since all scientific findings are tentative, meaning that they're open to change in light of new information or improved understanding.Mark is making the point that your 6,000 year-old universe hypothesis is without evidentiary support, while evidence for an approximately 14 billion year-old universe is copious and abundant. To very briefly summarize the evidence for an ancient earth and universe (without explanation at this point, would be glad to clarify and expand as necessary):

1. Red shift.
2. Cosmic background radiation.
3. Stellar evolution.
4. Radiometric data.
5. Geological data.
6. Fossil data.
7. Magnetic reversals.
8. Sea floor spreading rate.
9. Varve layers.
10. Glacial layers.

The point that has already been made several times here is that your 6,000 year-old hypothesis has as much supporting evidence as do invisible ethereal flying pink unicorns: none. Sure, this point is raised here all the time. The problem is that not only is there no evidence of God creating space from nothing, there isn't even any evidence of God.--Percy

Hi, Theo!Shifting discussion of off-topic issues to other threads happens all the time here. If you do a search for "off topic" you'll see that this is a very common warning from admins. It's even the first rule in the Forum Guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

Sometimes people move the off-topic discussion to another thread, sometimes they let it drop. There is no requirement that you engage the discussion in the other thread.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Theo!Just for reference, Message 20 of the Lineage of Jesus thread quotes the Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius references to Jesus in full. The nearby messages include some helpful discussion. Nothing against Simon Greenleaf, it's just that your approach is commonly known as the fallacy of argument from authority. What evidence did Greenleaf advance in support of his views?--Percy

Given the proviso that Mark has already made - that ALL of science is provisional - I can find you a library full of books and journals that indicate that the Earth is billions of years old. A good start is The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple. Another good start would be to go read the book of the world around you - see how much Aluminum 26, Manganese 53, or any other radioactive isotope with a half-life less than 80,000,000 years you can find in the rocks around you.[Fix italicized title. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2003]

Very well - name ten where the term was employed.Are you claiming that (1) Tacitus was referring to some other movement, and/or that (2) the reference was a later interpolation? If not, the comments seem just a bit disingenuous to me.Doesn't it make more sense that he was simply relying on current (i.e., early 2nd century CE) Christian sources?Parenthetically, the Encyclopedia Judaica defines Messiah as: "an adaptation of the Aramaic meshiha, a translation of the Hebrew (ha-melekh) ha-mashi'ah, "the Anointed [King]"; a charismatically endowed descendant of David who the Jews of the Roman period believed would be raised up by God to break the yoke of the heathen and to reign over a restored kingdom of Israel to which all the Jews of the Exile would return. This is a strictly postbiblical concept."

Nope, never have. Tell me about 'em.