Since it is doable, it is a valid explanation. We accept the natural explanation before any supernatural one. You shouldn't first assume some supernatural method especially since you don't even believe in the uncreated creator.Originally Posted by DD2014
No, it is not in debate. It's proven.That is in debate.
I would be happy to. Here they are.Please share them.
What we have concerning Jesus is actually quite impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider critical thesis that other authors wrote pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we'd have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. (Clement of Rome's letter to the church in Corinth; 2 Clement whose author is unknown; the seven letters of Igantius; Polycarp's letter to the Philippians; The Martyrdom of Polycarp; Didache; the letter of Barnabas; The Shepherd of Hermas; Fragments of Papias; the letter of Diognetus; the Apocalypse o Peter (not to be confused with the Nag Hammadi text of similar name); the Gospel of Peter; the Epistula Apostolorum; and the works of Justyn Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, and Melito of Sardis. The four heretical writings are the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection-see Habermas, Historical Jesus, 208-15.
Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within 150 years: Joseph, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion (highly regarded in a British Museum). In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death. (see Habermas, Historical Jesus, ch. 9).
A few more fall on the borderline bringing the total non-Christian to 17 non-Christian sources I have in Habermas' Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus. His consummate work is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004).
After spending three years with Jesus, Jesus was seen resurrected for 40 days before His ascension. Peter wrote he saw Him resurrected. So did John and Paul. They acknowledge their writing and acknowledge seeing Jesus resurrected. And they mention various others who also saw Jesus resurrected which agrees with the claims of Jude, James, Matthew, Luke and Mark in their writings. Mark even identifies a person in his writings many scholars concede is Mark referring to himself.So none of them saw him, it is all hearsay.
Santa, taking the name of Satan by reworking the letters, is admittedly a fairy tale who was invented by a Roman Catholic as a story he admits. You are missing the point. You are arguing for not enough sources for Jesus, but he is the most documented person in antiquity, so your approach is faulty.Then good ol' Saint Nick has everyone beat. How many eyewitness testimonies have been offered for the existance of Santa??? A heck of a lot more then Jesus or Tiberius. Does that mean Santa is real?
Oh you forgot to answer my question.......
What question did I forget to answer? Nobody in antiquity has an oldest copy dated at its composition or so closely to the time of the vents than for Jesus, so why do single out Jesus? Though Mark and Matthew and John may have started writing when Jesus was still alive, its unreasonable to demand that oldest and original copy to still be preserved. When you have a doublestandard it shows you are wrong.
We know the NT was completed in the first century because the church fathers can reproduce most of it by their quotes in the second century. And several documents like the Didache in the first century also provide many quotes of the NT. So does Clement and Polycarp still in the first century and they personally knew Peter and John.As far as I know, there is no certain historical evidence as to the date the gospels creation. None of the other books in the NT acknowledge the writen gospels and the earliest manuscripts date to the second century. I don't know what evidence you are reffering to, please cite.
Since most of the Apostles died in the Neronian persecutions, their books were written before 65 AD and some much earlier than that. The last book written was the book of Revelation which speaks of end-times and was written in 95 AD the last surviving Apostle of the original 12.
The NT books don't even need to refer to each other. If anything that only shows their independency, yet agrees completely to the events the Apostles encountered. For example, Paul's journeys setting up the churches in many towns an many regions agree with the reports by Luke about his travels. I like that the sources are independent of one another and don't mention each other to show they weren't taking from each other you admit. That's a good thing not a bad thing. It shows authenticity not copying. We, therefore, have multiple independent accounts.
Since Luke wrote Acts, a biography about Paul, but did not report his death, Acts would have been completed before 65 AD. His book of Luke he says is his former work. He took from Mark and Mark worked with Peter. So these writings are dated very early. And Paul says these things he received from the Apostles that he is sharing come from his meetings with Peter, James and John. He says so in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. He was met Peter and James within 5 years after the cross, or even sooner.
You really got nothing. Try again.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks